₦airaland Forum

felixomor:
Sorry, but you are wrong
The injury is not "natural"
So your theory that a "natural" animal only causes "natural" injury is flat Wrong

Please i will not waste time here going over natural and unnatural injuries please answer my own questions as i have answered yours even though it was a digressing tactics.

Pathogens natural or not?

felixomor:
The bottle is not guilty, you are
I could replace the bottle with your teeth

Since you are natural
Can we say the injury is "natural"?

Yes or Nay

yes, its an effect of a natural cause. the only exception is that it is willful that is an inclusion of mimd..

I am still waiting

felixomor:
I promise I will answer your question
But Before I answer your question

Don't you see you have just taken another turn returning my questions with questions.

1. Are you as a human being natural or spiritual?

Natural

2. And if you injure another man with a bottle while struggling for food, is that injury natural?

The bottle is an artificial agent in this case.


so please answer me: are these pathogens natural or not?

felixomor:
"Something" as used by me is pathologically and medically speaking
So trying to explain it with physics is not a tenable speech
We don't discuss "causality" as in universe against "aetiology" as in diseases

Pathology is the science of diseases

Both Physics and pathology are within the scope of Natural sciences, and i ask again: These pathogens that causes diseases are they spiritual or natural ?

felixomor:
Once something has a cause, its not "natural"
Thats the simple explanation

this is incorrect, everything has a cause and cannot be said to be unnatural, if that is so then the sun is unnatural, the earth is not natural, as a matter then the universe is not natural because all these things are at one point effects of a cause.

Causality is not an exempting factor of nature but rather a tool of nature.

Every single disease has a pathology beneath

and this pathology is spiritual and not natural i guess?

The worst you can have is an "idiopathic" (unknown cause)

Causality is not same as unnatural since even the causes themselves are natural agents.

felixomor:
Sorry my sister
Sickle cell is not a "natural" disease", it has a cause
Zika also is a sexually transmitted infection, it has a cause

Please does having a cause mean that a particular effect is unnatural?

No disease is 'natural"

Outstanding claim - alright lets talk about it the.. Now expound on this, No disease is natural, i believe everyone here is curious to hear the details

akintom:
Thread serve different purposes.

This was put here, to checkmate and nip the attempt acts, of lies, fraud, impersonation and charlatanry, from choking intelligent interrogation of our society.

Alternate moniker use, isn't the crux here. But the deceptive use of one, and the same moniker, fraudulently claiming to be what she's not.

Hence, the need of the thread, to decisively unmask the mischievous character.

I still believe it's childish and irrelevant, besides nothing has been unmasked here yet just accusations based on speculations and counter accusation plus denial.

in my own thought, i really doubt the spectacular girl is same as feliximor, the writing style differ and choice of words too. I don't know though i might be wrong but still i dont think such trivial issue deserve a thread IMO

This is all getting so puerile, so there are no longer reasonable arguments, criticisms of idea, debates and discussion to engage in. what you all are interested in is who uses an alternate moniker and that to the extent that you guys open threads to discuss such trivial nonsense.

This is not the first or even the second of such threads here, there have been countless of them lately.

Most people here even those criticizing or accusing people of having alternate monikers also have alternate monikers, and so?

what if someone has an alternate moniker, how does that change anything, how will that brush up the person's argument further or make their points any more valid than they already are?

I see no reason for all this nonsense... xx is xy alternate moniker because it's all nonsense. Monikers doesn't matter, what matters is your argument and what you can offer.

criticize, debate, argue and antagonize each other ideologically, that is all good.

But this moinker brouhaha is all serious crap

nemesis2u:
sorry for the 2 off topic posts

@johnydon22



i have posted below the complete hymn ie Nasadiya Sukta - the hymn of creation from rig veda

The hymn starts with mentioning that there was nothing air / atmosphere then and neither the events of day and night. it was all dark everywhere and then the 'one' was born of the power of heat - perhaps alluding to a big bang sort of hypothesis giving birth to the Universe. Reference is then made to mighty fertile forces stretching across an apparent void.

Carl Sagan once said "Imaginations may take us to worlds that never existed but without it we go no where" i once read somewhere on this forum where someone said "knowledge is not a mark of intelligence but imagination" with example that there is no great scientific progress that has been accomplished off the confines of imagination. Theory of gravitation, relativity, big bang, evolution; All started from a deep imagination musing over observed effects raging all around us.

there is no religion richer than Hinduism in terms of profound and intense imagination that has humbled great scientific minds of our time with it's reconcilable qualities with the science of our time.

take for instance the above post "The one was born out of heat" which is a shouty factor in the big bang, it still didn't stop there, it's further assertions brings a disturbingly striking resemblance to the Big Bang model [b['made to mighty fertile forces stretching across an apparent void.[/b]

One can actually define the Big Bang with those scriptural texts.

But after ruminating over the above hypothesis, the hymn then alludes to the absence of any certain knowledge of the facts stating that no one really knows how creation happened, for the Gods came later after creation.

they are humble and wise people of outstanding intellect, the very fact that they admitted uncertainty in their theory makes them a rare gem in the intellectual field of man.

It also contemplates that perhaps the creator holds the reins to this Universe and maybe even he doesn't, and that maybe he keeps an eye on all, knowing it all, and maybe he doesn't, hence making it apparent that there is no definite proof of an omniscient and omnipotent God and that the Gods did not create the Universe.

it's awesomely mind boggling what men of that time could think out

PS: were u were alluding to the 6th portion of the hymn in ur opening remarks

yeah

also note Sanskrit translations ( especially by western authors and leftists ) r never accurate becz one Sanskrit word can have more than 10 meaning , so it is hard to arrive at the original thought process /real intentions of the original writers/composers.

IMO best interpreters of vedas r the atheists

Atheists give quite straight meaning to scriptural texts

Seun:
Humanism feels like a religion. It has dogmas that every 'Humanist' must subscribe to. I agree with most of their dogmas, but: count me out!

it is not actually just a philosophical stance on humanity and it's moral outlook. . . For you to regard yourself one, you must first have subscribe to the tenets of it's philosophical stance.

Humanism is as much a religion as stoicism can be referred to as a religion which is in fact wrong

onyenze123:
Humanism has no religious bearing. A christian can also be a Humanist.

I quite agree to some extent but for that to be possible such a person must be a radically liberal Christian since the tenets of Humanism as school of thought is consonant with the fundamental values of Christianity or Islam or even most conventional religion.

let me add a definition to this 'an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.'

you see from this definition, a humanist derives moral basis sorely from a human value and not the divine, the divine (God, God(s) ) are unneeded and mostly irrelevant in humanism as a school of thought..

So i am sure it is quite paradoxical for a christian to be a humanist since it eliminates the relevance of God(s) which is the fundamental value of christianity from the moral, social outlook of man.

nemesis2u:
let me enlighten u on some more fascinating tales from the ancient sages of India

Thank you good sir, i am very much interested in these tales.

Yoga Vashishtha, the text which states conversations between Vashistha, a RIG VEDIC teacher, and various Gods and Kakbhushubdi a creature which stands outside of normal time and sees all.

It recounts the cyclical nature of time, where Kakabhushundi has seen Ramayan (a incident involving lord Rama ) 11 times with different outcomes and seen Mahabharat (a incident involving battle between brothers ) 16 times with different results, but after seeing Daksha Yagya twice, he did not either care to see it again or saw no point to seeing any more, as it ended the same way each time.

This is interesting, a transcendent being observing actions transpiring within time and seeing different results each time even though similar causality, this borders on the infinite nature of the cosmological possibilities, if i dare say

Further conversations talk about the atoms or 'anu' at quantum level and inside each quantum level are different universes.
A sorrowful queen is shown that her husband is still alive in one of the quantum or atomic universes and ruling wisely and is given the option to join him there.

the bolded is a possibility i find quite humbling and profound as mention in the Op, there is an infinite regression of universes in an upward or downward progression.

everything is a universe of it's own, every atom within our universe is an universe of it's own and our universe might even just be an atom in a much larger universe in the upward progression. It's a humbling and mind boggling possibility

The idea of Heisenberg's Principle is enunciated when a Rishi (ancient sage/teacher) visits and illustrates a decision tree by showing how several parallel universes, with all possible results of a decision, could occur and uses that illustration to explain why he took the decision he did in this universe.

Sounds a lot similar to modern idea of quantum superposition, there is a dual possibility in every cuase, like a cat in a box is both alive and dead.

then there is the implicit mention of TIME DILATION in the Puranas .

Bhagavatam 9. 3.29-32 tells us how one person went to the highest planetary system and stayed for 20 mins .When he returned to earth 116,640,000 years had passed by on earth. He neither found his friends, relatives or sons,grandsons.He could not find a record of their family tree.

hundreds of years later we had to wait for Einstein to understand time dilation

i have attached a picture of the original slokas as well as the translation since the anti spam bot gets triggered by unrecognized texts.

this is mind blowing, it's amazing what the ancient discipline of Hinduism achieved intellectually. it almost seem like the more we progress in science the closer we get to hindu cosmogony.

Like i have mention that the Big bang cosmological model heads towards an idea first proposed by the Hindus thousands of years ago [i will explain this further on demand]

but this is quite fascinating

Deicide:
It seems that Quantum theory, on the other hand, can predict how the universe will begin. Quantum theory introduces a new idea, that of imaginary time. Imaginary time may sound like science fiction, and it has been brought into Doctor Who. But nevertheless, it is a genuine scientific concept. One can picture it in the following way. One can think of ordinary, real, time as a horizontal line. On the left, one has the past, and on the right, the future. But there's another kind of time in the vertical direction. This is called imaginary time because it is not the kind of time we normally experience. But in a sense, it is just as real, as what we call real time.

The three directions in space and the one direction of imaginary time make up what is called a Euclidean space-time. I don't think anyone can picture a four-dimensional curve space. But it is not too difficult to visualize a two-dimensional surface, like a saddle, or the surface of a football.

If space and imaginary time are indeed like the surface of the Earth, there wouldn't be any singularities in the imaginary time direction, at which the laws of physics would break down. And there wouldn't be any boundaries, to the imaginary time space-time, just as there aren't any boundaries to the surface of the Earth. This absence of boundaries means that the laws of physics would determine the state of the universe uniquely, in imaginary time. But if one knows the state of the universe in imaginary time, one can calculate the state of the universe in real time. One would still expect some sort of Big Bang singularity in real time. So real time would still have a beginning. But one wouldn't have to appeal to something outside the universe, to determine how the universe began. Instead, the way the universe started out at the Big Bang would be determined by the state of the universe in imaginary time. Thus, the universe would be a completely self-contained system. It would not be determined by anything outside the physical universe, that we observe.

interesting, really interesting and tickles the very excitement of my imagination. i will research more on it and then bring forth my thought on it

CoolUsername:
I unfortunately have no profound answer to this mystery. The Universe as we know it started with the Big Bang. I personally cannot fathom an event from 'before' the birth space-time.

stephen Hawkins once said "there is no such a thing as 'before' the big bang, it is just like saying, the end of the earth' the trait of being spherical means the earth has no point that can be said to be it's starting point or end point; his argument being that if "time/space started at the big bang then cannot be a 'before' since that implies time, but since time started at the big bang therefore there is no 'before' since time was yet to exist.


do you agree with him on that?

It may be possible that the Universe may be cyclical in nature. There's a hypothesis of one the possible fates of the universe known as the Big Crunch. In this hypothesis, the Universe would slowly stop expanding until the expansion process starts to reverse, eventually causing a collapse. This is unprovable with our current scientific knowledge.

remarkably this shares a disturbing similarity with the Hindu cosmogony even though ancient. it is one of the few cosmological models that i find really profound and appreciate. if this is so then the Big Bang was certainly not the first or the last but just one out of an infinite circle.

i will explain further on demand

The Multiverse hypothesis also seems interesting, there's evidence to show that the end result of a black hole is eerily similar to what the Universe may have looked like right at the moment of the Big Bang. This hypothesis is again unprovable with our current scientific knowledge.

Strabo, an Alexandrian geographer once wrote "Those who return from an attempt to circumnavigate the earth do not say that they have been prevented by an opposing continent, but the sea remained perfectly open. but rather, through want of resolution and scarcity of provision.
Eratosthenes says that if the extent of the atlantic ocean were not an obstacle, we might easily pass by sea from Iberia to india. .... it is quite possible that in the temperate zones there may be one or two habitable earths (continents). indeed if these other part of the world is inhabited, it is not inhabited by men such as exist in our parts and we have to regard it as another inhabited world"

he said it while musing on whether there are other expanse of lands out there (what we now call continents) he wondered if there are inhabited and argued that the people who might inhabit these lands would not be same as them therefore it is only right to refer to these inhabited lands as another world.

you see long ago the men in Europe wondered if other people and land were on earth (they even regarded them as other worlds), most recently humanity wondered if our galaxy (what we then called universe) was the only there is but using the mount Wilson's telescope we discovered that it wasn't. now we have deducted that there are billions of such universes (galaxies)

the new question now is: is this universe (comprising of all galaxies and what not within the expanse of space-time) all there is?
judging from the results of antiquity, the answer seem promising and exciting.

if there is a cosmogony i hold as profound as an eternal looped cosmological cause and effect, it is that there probably is an infinite regression of universes upward and downward.

At the end of it all I am comfortable enough to admit that I do not have a definitive answer to this question.

fair enough but i do believe that sometimes the answers lies within the horizon of our imagination

Deicide:
I like that Stephen Hawkings IMAGINARY TIME Concept

let's hear it

cc. dorox, loj.

And the beginning who really knows, who can tell ho creation happened? closing remark of a Hindu Veda

I highlighted this quote above from the scripture because of the message it passes, even after presenting a profound and deep cosmogony unmatched by any propounded by every other religion in depth or meaning or in it's remarkable closeness to the present scientific models and cosmogony, the Hindu Veda closes with a verse of the utmost humility and skepticism.

This intellectual humility is something lacking in several school of thoughts, philosophies or theologies abound today as there seem to be a dire need for dogma in every human enterprise, the need to cling to opinions, a stoic conviction accompanied by arrogance and unmerited unsubstantiated claims of certainty.

who really knows?

truer words has never been spoken - scattered all around different cultures, theology and traditions there seem to be found a certain model of cosmogony exclusive to each class of theology, tradition or culture.

- Some attributes all there is to the divine: The cosmos was directly or indirectly caused by a conscious divine entity or entities.

-while some imagine a circular causality of self - The cosmos was an inevitable effect from an impending duality of everything. [we will explain further as we go]

- others also in an eternal cosmos : eternal, encompassing and infinite regression of universes, ancient and diverse. in this school of thought the cosmos is eternal and in sublet thoughts in a circular causality loop

which school of thought is right, under which of these do you fall under?

Let us identify our thoughts on the cosmological causality and calibration and then debate and discuss them with humility, intellectual honesty and avoid as much egoistic personal arguments, personal tantrums or insults.

what do you think, discuss your cosmogony?

KingEbukasBlog:
Its not assumption .

Its simple actually .

God's eternal nature

-Contingency
To be contingent means it is possible for something not to exist , to be dependent on something else in this case existence . If infinite regress of causes is possible , nothing would exist . You can't have an infinite chain of contingents . This makes infinite regress impossible . But something does exist , something can't come from nothing and nothing comes from nothing . That means something is eternal , without a beginning , conscious , necessarily existing having enormous power to cause matter to exist from its being (creatio ex deo) . To exist necessarily means to be non -contingent .

-God is a pure mind or simple being
Complexity has to do with physical parts interacting with one another . But God has none of those . Or do you know of parts that make God up?

Now tell me , where is the assumption ? According to Rene Descartes , you can obtain knowledge only by reason (rationalism ) . Here is knowledge of God obtained through reason , can you see any faults here ?

No offense brother but you are certainly losing it. How this escalated from the simple question "Is Polygamy a sin?" into a theism versus Atheism battle beats me.

i told you before you always see a competition or some form of battle between atheism and theism in everything even in threads that has nothing concerning atheism or comments that doesn't imply atheism in the least sense.

Get a grip, try and get it together.

Nobody even answered the OP and just managed to completely derail the op right from nowhere. it's really disturbing to watch...

---

to the OP, whether polygamy is a sin or not depends who you ask and from which theological, cultural or social standpoint you want your answer to be based on.

Lol

HardMirror:
Being unique makes us special. We have over 7 billion people on this planet now and many more have died. What is so special about 7billion people, what purpose are they serving? If allowed we would keep increasing, why should we increase, to serve what purpose. I disagree. We aint special. We are just another specie of animals. You know what 7billion people want? Check and see for yourself how special our needs are.

Read the post again

Seun this post got 44likes without smelling the front page, imagine what it's potentials on the home page. Do the needful let's see

I will reply this from a scientific point of view, from a vintage point past the shores and limitations of this earth. Humans are young and venerable but yet are brave and curious.

The Cosmos may be densely populated with intelligent beings. But the evolutionary lesson is clear: There will be no humans elsewhere. Only here. Only on this small planet. We are a rare as well as an endangered species. Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In all million billion galaxies scattered in the vastness of forever, you will not find another.

Coldfeets:
My friend what are you saying?

If you as a full grown adult still believes a man was born of a virgin, suffered death and was crucified, rose up from the dead after three days and then went straight to heaven, then why can't you believe this corpse story?

I am an atheist, basing your argument on the false premise that i believed the crap you listed above was your first fail.

next time, dont start with assumptions.

This corpse story even has a video to prove it and yet you wanna remain an unrepentant disbeliever.

Too bad.

video of people carrying the corpse thats all we see. the video doesn't show the corpse taking the villagers anywhere but rather the Villagers taking the corpse somewhere

Africans can be terribly stupid: Corpse refused to be buried and take villagers to the house of it's killers, baam when you check you see people carrying the corpse. why isnt the corpse taking them there on it's own without humans having to carry it.. ndi nzuzu everywhere

davtosh:
HopefulLandlord

Find a living Church and yould all your life be proud to tell your Atheist brothers Jesus is Lord.

A true christian dont live in sin.
We live out of it

there are living churches and dead churches.. lmao

chemystery:
Na wa o, you must be living in another planet then

nope I live in Enugu, Nigeria.

chemystery:
Atheist in the house, do you make your believes known openly and publicly asides on social media or anonymous forum?

If no, Why?

If yes? How do you cope with being ostracized?

cc: seun

Yes and none have ostracized me too. Most rather have immense respect for me

The dashboard looks good. Let's see the interface

no, it's not

KingEbukasBlog:
As a blogger one knows or should learn how to draw attention to whatever idea who wants to publicize or promulgate .

I don't quite get this bro

CatfishBilly:
https://www.nairaland.com/2703924/discussion-thread-johnydon22/4#39803468
So, here is KingEbukasBlog stating that atheists can't be religious, superstitious, believe in ghosts.
Then he went right ahead to open this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/3500235/must-read-god-without-religion
Ebuka is a liar without an atom of shame, he and Felixomor.

To be fair he didn't know any better then, he changed his thoughts on that after I taught him the contrary