₦airaland Forum

How exactly do you catch two adults having sex? I don't understand this one bit. Two adults, no matter their profession has every right to have sex as long as consent is mutual.

How exactly does Pastor and member relationship make two adults ineligible of having sexual relations to the extent of beating or castigating them?

How exactly is their sexual activity anyone's business?

chemystery:
Lol. Why the ad hominem? Don't get emotional yet. You can always put you point across without all that. Try it next time and thank me later.

And where do you want to find the interest in providing proof when you have none. You should have a proof first before talking about interest.

Yeah. So far, nothing seem to serve as proof for the existence of god because nothing has yet been served as proof.

I think everyone is misunderstanding the fundamental premise of this argument.

It is built from the original premise of my thread which assumes that evidence to prove the existence of God is necessary but the understanding the nature of evidence you must understand the sort of evidence that is necessary to satisfy the need for proof.

My thread asks: What sort of evidence would serve as sufficient proof in this regard?

And i think a short summary of Winner01's argument is "No evidence is necessary or will be sufficient enough to convince an atheist'

i quite do not agree with that. If an atheist sets his expected nature of evidence and such evidence is confirmed then such an atheist by his own standard has confirmed the illegitimacy of his doubt.

if he fails in the face of this evidence (which he think is necessary) to at least entertain the possibility of being wrong then that could be an intellectual dishonesty at play.

I hope this clears the argument though

delkuf:
there some that have been won to Christ before. it is an evil spirit control them, and like every other evil spirit,it can be bind and loose. there is nothing God cannot do. The Lord Jesus Christ said all power in heaven and on earth has been given to Him(matt28:18). we serve the one that have the power. I believe they can still be converted

Lol abi?

emrain:
1. No

But they are separate entities?

2. Just as the soul needs a body to survive, the spirit needs the soul.

So the spirit is more like the soul of the soul?

Lol this is one very long write-up.

Army10:
nonsense, existence can be created and destroyed

How so? Did you even think about this?

emrain:
Is there such thing as a soul? YES.
Is a soul the same as a spirit? No.

Your soul is basically who you are. i.e - The mind.
The spirit is basically the state of the mind. These things are immaterial and needs a host, that's where the body comes in.

1.And these things can exist separately from the host?

2. Shouldn't spirit be nature of the soul if it is the state of the soul and not separate in it self?

purem:
Consciousness is been aware and in control of what going on around you

Can you control the images you see in head while dreaming?

Of course you can't, you either try to recall back those images after you've been conscious

Are there functions we possess that are automated but still controlled by the brain?

NPComplete:
If we believe the soul is real then surely we can't be the only animals with a soul on this planet

Every animal that exhibits any form of self consciousness can be said to have a soul in that regards. A sheep that is able to tell itself apart from another sheep also has a soul then.

What I reject completely is the exclusivity of the soul that humans lay claim to. It is either we have no soul and we are just the summation of complex electrical wirings in the brain or all animals have a soul. It cannot be neither.

So you don't know which is it?

sonmvayina:
Who told you it does not happen in developed world... I spent 10 years in London, I know what I saw on London Bridge...

Regail us the tale bro

krattoss:
Ve been opportuned to ask a mortuary attendant this back when I was extra inquisitive about these metaphysical occurrences and this is what I found out..

The first person I asked cautioned me on been extra inquisitive and told me their re many forces n this vast world.

Long story short, he told me that spirits and ghosts exists..

So unfortunate I didn't request more digs into it..

That was then Shaa... Now am more concerned on the Hustle part of life more than metaphysical and afterlife part of it..

Lol. But why would he caution you about being extra inquisitive?

Jesse01:
Human beings consist of a consciousness, a spirit and a soul, all of which were created through the will of God. So yes soul and spirit are real.

Wait. A consciousness, spirit and soul? They are not the same?

Can you expatiate?

purem:
If we believe that spirit is real then that will validate the idea that God also is real

Of course I've never said that Godis not real neither have I said that he's real

However if a man can sleep and see some images in his head (dream) then spirit is real coz dreaming is out of consciousness

Either which way it may be, am not certain but what am certain about is that the last sentence of the poster above me also applies to me

How is dream out of the consciousness?

tintingz:
I'm not expert in this subject but the concept of a conscious entities like spirits/souls existing falls under same category as existence of God/s. Both cannot be proven and lack demonstrations to prove thier existence.

On an intrinsic quantification, they may not necessary be that much related

Does our thoughts comes from our brain or where, where is our memory stored?

Do you think our mind proves we in fact have a soul? or is the mind a product of our brain(matter)?

CAPSLOCKED:

SOUL AND SPIRITS ARE REAL...
ONLY ON AFRICAN MAGIC.

I think that is an oversimplification. Most religious and philosophical position believes the mind is not a product of matter but actually the soul in manifestation.

Soul and spirit is a concept that spans through every culture

Blakjewelry:
I think this a very broad topic and I will come back to give my view

It will be an interesting debate if people argued their position without condescension and unnecessary emotions.

We look forward to having you back

2 years now

It doesn't matter what you call it; spirit, soul. This concept is at the very fundamental ground of theistic beliefs, it is the point of the afterlife theory.

Plato believed the mind was as a result of the Gods putting a soul/spirit into man but Democritus (the man who first proposed the concept of atoms) believed the contrary.

Democritus argued that every effect is as a result of matter, that in intrinsic arrangements matter could and will give rise to thoughts.

Do you believe in spirit? Why do you think that man has a spirit? What is the effect of spirit?

Do you think there is no soul/spirit? Why?

Let us argue and debate in a good and profound way

LucemFerre:
It is a dilemma alright. Just not a moral one.
The first and second instances could be classified as moral dilemmas.
One cannot judge morality by choosing either of the other options.

Both instances are moral dilemas.

Saving someone is a moral thing. But when saving someone entails sacrificing another, it becomss a dilema

festwiz:
Yes.

I knew you'd say that. The only reason I tagged 2b as plain murder is because he was never in harms way. The illustrations I posted depicts the actual "Trolley problem".

Good point

LucemFerre:
Yea, he shouldn't have said it was the "right" thing to do. He's not in the position to judge who should live and who should die? I think these horrible, inhuman scenarios are more about decision making than about moral judgement.

Why do you think it is called a moral dilema?

CoolUsername:
1a. The man is morally obligated to save the child since he'll only lose his suit and no damage would be done to him.

1b. The man isn't morally obligated to take care of a foreign child's problems. The society should have systems in place to avoid casualties from treatable illness, you cannot save everyone.

These two scenarios present similar circumstances only distance is the difference.

Curious how our morality wanes with distance?

2a. I would probably redirect the train to the side where one man is working. Although, I won't fault anyone for whatever decision he/she makes.

2b. I wouldn't push the fat man into the track. Can't really put my reason into words, but it just seems more... homicidal, maybe?

Aren't the two actions and result for 2a and 2b the same?

How come you choose differently?

Image123:
What is the value of morality without spirituality? Who determines what is moral or not? Therein lies the answers to your question.

Explain?

tartar9:

You remind me of that my friend in primary school that sets his own questions in an exam when he can't answer the ones given.

Lmao asin eeeh

TheConfuser:
Okay my brother.



Yes. Like the Good samaritan of the Bible I will save that child.



Confusing, Ha . Ecclesiastes 1:8 says that there is a time for everything, and I am sure the man has enough time to spare after he saves the childs life. Besides, the new treatment for malaria, ACTs, cost 2-2.5 dollars for an adults dosage

Great.

The question actually is: Are you morally obligated to?

I would push the train track lever and direct the train to the side where one man is working, then I would run as fast as I can to move the man away bro.

It's a thought experiment, you can't run to the save the other. It's either 1 or the other

If I have the time to push a fat man who would offer resistance to my murder attempt, then I also have the time to do something else, so No. I would throw a rock at the five men so that they notice me, and when I point the train to them they would get out.

About the two train scenarios, after saving them, I would make a complaint with the subway company to ban the use of sound blockers on tracks still in use, and wouldn't the men feel the train vibrations as it was coming?

It's thought experiment so the assumption that the fat man would resist is inexistent.

So?

LucemFerre:
TF is wrong with you? How is it the right thing to do?

I think he is considering number of lives in his conception of good

Sacrifice 1 to save 5

LucemFerre:
What kind of a terrible person thought these scenarios? it's just wicked an unfair to make me choose. IF the time comes we'll see. Urgg

Hahaha

festwiz:
1. I would save the child not cause of it being morally good but rather out of emotions.
1b. I'd buy the suit. After saving one child, what next? Does that put a dent in the tens of millions suffering the ailment?

But either way you are not morally obligated to save the child. Yes?

2. The lesser of both evils. I'd flick the switch to save the 5. Look at it this way. Let's assume all men on the tracks have an average of three kids per man, if doing nothing gets them all killed then that's 18 orphans. Saving the 5 reduces that number by a great degree.
2b. No! That's murder.

2b is murder even though it achieves same aim as 2a? Isn't 2a murder since an argument can be made that you willfully murdered the lone man working on one side of the track?

tintingz:
Your question is a trolley dilemma and most people will want to apply the principle of double effect.

And you?

tartar9:
1.Yes,I will be morally obligated to save this child.

1b.Equally,I see any expenses spent on anything other than the barest minimum needed for survival as falling under this category,hence this obligation shouldn't exist here;but since you said only the man's money can save the child,I find myself morally obligated to help this child.

ok

2 & 2b.I would do what saves the most people.Were I to do nothing,it would be similar to doing nothing in scenerio 1.

2. You'd direct the train towards the lone worker.

2b. you'd push off the fat man?

The answers I gave are shaped more by my beliefs,conscience and emotions-I won't be arrested for committing a crime if I choosed doing nothing in any of these scenarios.Were I were to give strictly logical views,my answers would probably be different.

Great

adoyi8:
Before I answer this question, I will like you to know that I believe that humans subconsciously do good things selfishly either to make other people see them as good or to clear their conscience. i will respond using my conscience as the major factor

Arguable

Ia. I will save the child because the child's life obviously lies in my hand and if i WATCH him drown, then my conscience will judge me for a long time.

There is a difference between saving the child and being morally obligated to.

Do you think you are morally obligated to?

1b. I am not morally obligated to save the child firstly because I cant SEE the child dying and his fate lies in other peoples hand too such as the doctors who refuse to treat him unless i fore go buying my suit and other rich men planning to buy expensive ferraris

ok

2a and b- I will do nothing in both instances and let the train take its course. This will leave me with a clear conscience knowing it's not my fault.

Ok, this is a hypothetical question.

for the first question, there is no middle ground, you must choose.

remember as a thought experiment, no rationality is necessary, just answer according to the options provided

vaxx:
. The answer to your question lies in between .

are you answering the questions or not?