₦airaland Forum

We live in a 4D world oh!! Time is th fourth dimension!!

^^
That's a scientific question, just as the entire sexuality subject is.

@uyi

In other words, reason justifies faith?

@vexadcool

You drew up a scale of happiness claiming the muslim women in hijab are in a better place than the western woman. But I feel both are still unliberated and treated as property which can be hoarded or marketed and used.

^^ I don't understand why the source of all life has to be love?

We live in a 4D world, cos you add time. So nothing spiritual here

Loool!!

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Now i know atheism isn't just the belief in the non-existence of deities, it is also the belief that humans are nothing but animals and hence should behave like animals. Look at this evil brain and kay17 dudes; people should use their organs as they wish, what nonsense!!! If people are allowed to use their organs anyhow, then there's no point in condemning paedophiles, rapists and those who make love to animals. Hey people, word reaching me from nl atheists: we are all free to use our organs anyhow. In.cest, rape etc are allowed. Behave like animals since we are no better than dogs.[/quote]Whether humans are animals or not is clear for all to see. Given our high tendency of self destruction (wW1 and 2. Our discussion was limited to consenual sex, we are talking about what ppl wish to do with their bodies during sex. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals. So stick to the subjects, don't drench yourself with sensationalism.

1. Pls indulge me and repost it

2. That is not possible when the nonphysical is well distinguish in material frm the physical??

3. You didn't answer

1. I think we are back to square 1. Pls define supernatural again.

2. Consequently, the non physical can not give rise to the physical.

3. Forget about my example. Are miracles logical impossibilities?

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I don't quite remember classifying ideas as supernatural but that's by the way, more to the point: We both agree that there are aspects of reality that lack physicality. I hold that that a spaceless timeless immaterial realm must transcend a spacebound timebound material realm because it is not limited by the same boundaries and for that reason, the physical realm must be in a sense encompassed by the spiritual realm.
Secondly, the physical is always directly connected with the non-physical so I see no reason why they would be regarded as two separate sets instead of a set within another especially since one set is limited in all the ways the other set isn't.


Some examples of logical impossibilities would be a square circle, or a rectangle with 3 sides or a married bachelor. I don't think a dead man coming to life is a logical impossibility in the same sense because it is essentially a change from one state of being to another.
At best you may call it an event outside your experience in the same way that instant communication between two continents via phone is outside the experience of a man in the 6th century BC. He may even call it a natural impossibility if you told him about it, but it is in no way a logical impossibility.[/quote]We do agree that there is a non physical aspect of reality, namely abstract. But you at a point insisted that ideas for lacking physical restraints was supernatural.

Why I insist they are separate sets is that the non physical clarified by its definition doesn't encompass the physical, rather distinguished from the physical. Their substances are opposites.

Rather than dwell on my example, are miracles in your own view logical impossibilities??

Sorry for the late response, been kind of busy.

What's indecency?! Don't you think God has seen it all while he was creating them?! Does God watch everything we do and say? God surely has seen it all, does that imply that he is decadent?!

This outcry is moral conservatism in shrouds.

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]Okay, let's put the bible aside.
*neatly tucks bible into bag*
_________________________________

Do you need a soothsayer to know that the male organ (pen.is) was meant for the female organ (vag.ina)? Even animals know this truth.
_________________________________

O ye atheists, don't become blinded by your hate for GOD so that you lose every sense of morality. What is wrong is wrong and that's final.[/quote]Ok, peni.s enters vulva. Ok. Do you want laws that prohibit MouthAction? Or masturbation? Or artificial insemination? Or punish celibates? Should have laws that mandate everyone to insert their joysticks to vulvas?!

Humans have discretion, hence be permitted to use it as they wish.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Are you willing to hold up "the State" as an absolute moral authority for people?[/quote]Especially when it has punitive powers just like God.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]In all this, you have missed something important....
1. You cannot tell what religion Abraham was practicing, and what his religious requirements were yet you are suggesting that he was somehow not practicing it. How come?

2.More to the point I believe you are trying to make: Abraham in his covenant with God didn't have a "thou shalt not lie" clause therefore he wasn't bound so to speak to tell Abimelech that Sarah was his wife.

The point I am making to Seun is simple. No one can hold a virtue as a principle to uphold above himself if he/she doesn't hold that the principle comes from one higher than himself who he is bound to be faithful to.

For instance one of Jesus' commands was to love our enemies (matthew 5:44). Now someone who held that principle to the death was Stephen - Even when he was being stoned to death, he was praying for God's forgiveness for those who killed him. Why? because he was faithful to the one who commissioned him

I repeat that there is no atheist who has a logical reason to love his/her enemies to the point of his/her death especially since his values emanate from himself, the reasons for his principles will tend towards self-preservation as Seun has shown here.[/quote]Isn't a State higher than an individual?!

Billyonaire: I didnt say planetary systems are the only scale of time. On a solar level, you dont need time cos you can be anyway at any instant, you can be in several planets and planes at the same time. Soul is omnipresent.

But that's the implication of what you said.

The OP has a good point. Homosexuality is bad, its a sin and God doesn't like it.

However, how does that affect the public scene? Should homosexuality be criminalized because the Bible says so? Or should certain human rights of homosexuals be ignored? NO! Homosexuals should be allowed to marry(fulanis yorubas and co marry under traditional customs which secular laws approve, so marriage is not exclusively Christian), merituously adopt kids, drive, be employed etc.

Only the Christian homosexual who feels guilty, that should worry about the bible.

One could say time is illusory in the sense that both the past and future are memory trails and anticipatory respectively, hence only the present is experienced which in the absence of intervals isn't time.

But I don't agree with Billionaire that planetary systems are the only scale for time.

The theory is based on the strength of the proponets now. Check this http://www.science20.com/quantum_gravity/blog/big_bang_was_not_explosion_however_explosion_metaphor_what_big_bang_was-78575

That makes him very much an expert. Besides he isn't the only proponet to emphasize on the expansion.

Uyi, pls open up new thread on God in Creator Role. Would love to participate.

I only have problems with agnostics that say God is unproveable, and that feel atheists are foolish as a consequence.

If the Quran seeks validation from the Bible, then the bible is incomplete and imperfect and therefore can not be the Word of God. Hence the Quran is likewise false.

daryoor: can u proove there is GOD?
Im waitin for u, u can take as long as u want, just prove it to me with facts and not speculations or ''my book of bible stories''.
If u cant then thats what the agnostics are sayin. Its a Basic, straight forward,primary school simple scientific stand

I'm not a theist. God does not mean much to me

Reyginus: Lol. And hawkings proposed an expansion on hubble's theory?

I didn't say Hawkings proposed it, but that he is one of the strongest proponets of the theory. Isn't he in one of the most knowledgeable positions to talk about the theory?

Where did you get your explosion idea from?? Hubble??

Reyginus: What proponents are better than the theory propounder? We will have first accept that hubble was wrong inorder to accomodate the view of any proponent.
Points? Haha. What is the point of making any further point if the already posing ones have not been fully understood.

And Hubble proposed an explosion and coined the name big ban.g??

berylLOL: jeez..what is it with you people n my miracle na, me being alive is a testimony, having food and a peaceful family is enough to give thanks, dats my testimony, I didnt say I have one miracle, I said I'm a living testimony..and that is of sooo many miracles...brother ko, grandpa ni. Now do you have something reasonable to say?

How is all that impossible?

berylLOL: Magicians don't call on God, miracles do happen.

how do impossibilities occur? That's a contradiction.

If miracles are impossibilities occuring then its magiC and irrational. Or they are remote odds. Either of the two.

Emusan: Thanks for your recommendation but it is high time for you to believe in God and s miracles Bros

If believing in God entails Magic, a reasonable man wouldn't

Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable.
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken.
Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.
Are we not done with google?

Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.

Emusan is too ignorant. Its only a fool that would think a foetus can grow without a womb in a woman's body