₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
I hope you know that when the government says that the speed limit in a particular road is 30km/h, it is a form of objective moral source. Objective source of morality is NOT exclusive to God.

Nope. Land speed laws are not morality they are laws. Laws and morality often coincide but they are not the same thing.

Have you ever argued with the rational why a speed limit on a road is 100km/h and not 101km/h?
Why is adult age 18years and not 16 years. That's why a 17year 10month old girl is treated as a minor with respect to sexual activities with an adult.

Same with any objective morality?

Again no, these are laws put in place in society to establish order. Age limits differ from place to place so do the land speed limits. It is the society that determines what those limits should be based on their own societal demands. There is no singular source dictating what these limits should be.

But we will also feed and accept that carnivorous animals in our zoos must be fed with MEAT!
Humans will never get to a point where rationality makes us all vegetarians!

Animals are not under obligation to follow our morality.

Never said they would.

MaxInDHouse:
Keep deceiving yourself!
Witchcraft are the most powerful cult on this planet, yet they're never united in thought!

My friend,
Ìṣọ̀kan ni à ń sọ̀rọ̀ nípa ẹ̀ báyìí, wọn ò lè jíi!

When it comes to oneness in thought it's not possible for imperfect humans so without the presence of the most High God: JEHOVAH!

What is the name of the witchcraft cult?

oteneaaron:
As in ehn

This is the first time ever in my life that a JW is admitting that they are a CULT, and that their CULT is the best performing one.

This is a really interesting twist.

LMAO!

oteneaaron:
Come again?

Are you saying JW is actually a CULT, but the best performing one?

Ever heard of Heavens Gate?

Ever heard of the church of Scientology?

JW propaganda won't let him see road.

MaxInDHouse:
You failed because the meaning of SUPREME BEING is one who is able to make all his worshipers have the same line of thought {John 17:22} but no CULT on this planet can do that.
Wọn ò lè ji, kìí ṣ'érù akátá, akátá ò ní pa ẹdìyẹ kó tún pa ẹlẹ́dìyẹ!
Satan can only deceive you into thinking you will have absolute freedom {Genesis 3:4-5} but for Satan to have deceived you you'll only continue to fight and kill one another because all of you want absolute freedom yet that's not possible as you must cohabit with fellow humans of your kind who also want absolute freedom while living together in the same society! Luke 11:23

LoL! Scientology doesn't believe in your god yet are one of the most powerful cults in the world. Your mythological god is not the issue. Bwahahahahaha!

MaxInDHouse:
Hypocrisy is what's killing you!
You said it's FACTS that makes you feel good but here you are distorting facts yourself.
All what you mentioned up here cut across all religions not just one because there's no religion that's not interested in all but due to their failure they're now looking at JWs as the one and only group having the spirit to hold it's members under one umbrella! Matthew 5:13-16

There's no cult on this planet that can make all what you typed up there work because it's only the true God SUPREME BEING that has the power and will to do so! John 17:22

Satan is the founder of cultism, the reason why he can't succeed in all what you typed up there is his foundation. He deceived his first members (Adam and Eve) that they will have absolute freedom but ever since then he's been trying to gain absolute control over their descendants and since they're not submitting to him willingly he began using material possessions to entice them. Yet many of them do rebel against him so he kills many and turns others to insanes.

Therefore if what you typed up there is your definition of CULT then you're a failure because there is no cult that can have such control over it's members, ṣé wọ́n fẹ́ ji ni?

LMAO! At least you agree that JW ticks almost all the boxes in there. Bwahahahahaha!

MaxInDHouse:
Good!
LordReed is your family, ATHEIST FAMILY!

LoLz. The family of humanity, where we appreciate the diversity of opinion and of being.

TenQ:
To a very large extent, All laws are to protect the people and Morality can be Objective or Subjective. Where morality has an objective source, no argument suffices. Where morality is subjective, we can argue and postulate why or why not it should remain a standard.

Morality doesn't have an objective source. We (humans) are the source of morality which is why we discuss what it should be.

For me, Homosexuality is an example of an objective morality (from my God). No argument or suffices. It's like arguing why the maximum speed limit on a particular road is 100km/h and not 105km/h.

Good now you make it clear that you are following a "divine" command not because you know it is good or bad. Nor do you care about the facts, you will obey this "divine" command even in the face of contrary facts.

Vegetarians can be atheists or theists. My argument was that: if consent is the reason for a subjective morality we don't ask for the consent of chickens before eating them, why should we ask for consent from them if we feel like having sex with them?

We don't because we have evolved from beings who were instinctively following survival dictates. Now that we have more complex reasoning capacity we are faced with how continuing to eat animals fits with our morality and ethics. The move has been from indifference to treating animals more humanely then to not eating them at all. How you can see that and think bestiality will become normative is the blind spot I am point out to you. Again consent is one of the legs morality stands on and continuing to kill animals for food is kicking against it.

On nudity: I believe you understand that nudity is not offensive indoors. It only becomes offensive in public. BUT it hurts nobody; does it?

Did you even read what I wrote about why it is censured in public?

TenQ:
Can a program/algorithm exist outside a computer (HDD, CPU, GPU, RAM, ROM)?

You keep asking the same question that has been answered and does not provide any answer to question asked. No it can't, now can you stop asking this question and answer the one I asked you.

cornelboy:
LordReed that reiterates that JW org is a cult.
The last last time i checked the meaning of a cult, it converse what the JWs are doing today
This is a proof of his/your hatred for the JWs.

The pharisees in the Bible could be compared to atheists and apostates while Christendom could be compared to Judaism contaminated with men's doctrines. And the JW stand for the uncontaminated pure doctrines of the early church

Yes the JW org is a cult. Below is the check list for cults and JW checks almost every one of them.

TenQ:
I think I've answered this question at least twice.

Since in either position, no objective evidence can be established (no one can cut open any part of the body to show the mind or the soul), the best we can humanly do is to give a logical postulate/theory.

Therefore we have to propose our theory using the already known to explain the unknown.

For me, a known information is about the workings of a computer. I see a very strong parallel between how it functions with how the body of a living being function. In this case, the brain, central nervous system, eyes, and other organs of the body being analogous to the computer hardware and the Soul/Spirit represent the Application Softwares, System Softwares and Operating systems of a computer.

With this knowledge, I can describe the unknown from what is already known.

Like in all scientific theory, a theory is discarded if a better theory comes along. Any good theory must solve emergent problems and observations.ve a more robust alternate theory?

The facts point to the full grounding of mind in body, you who say mind can be independent of body are the one who needs to provide evidence for your assertions.

TenQ:
The argument of mutual consent is extremely weak to justify same sex attractions. The problem is that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves.
Bestiality for instance by the argument of consent falls apart. Putting it in perspective: if we can legally and morally kill and eat animals, having sex with animals should be nothing difficult.
Nudity is another example where no one is hurt by our action. How come it is still treated as immoral especially for an adult.
The argument of mutual consent or the argument of not hurting others is very weak in establishing rules for morality.

This is funny because you don't say why the issue of consent is weak with regards to homosexuality instead you substitute other things in and argue against those. Can you show how consent is actually weak with regards to homosexuality? Not that I was even arguing that consent is the reason why homosexuality is normative. It seems you don't understand my statements and instead of asking for clarification you are arguing against what I didn't say.

And you don't see that people are waking up to the fact that our treatment of animals goes against our very conception of morality or even good health. Or why do you think vegans and vegetarians exist? Do you think only atheists are vegans and vegetarians? A footballer was dropped by his sponsors because he kicked a cat for shittìng on his bed. Society is changing its mores towards animals.

Nudity is not immoral, public nudity is censured because it could lead to a breakdown of order. Your nudity in private is not considered immoral, you are free to walk around your home nude all day every day, nobody would say boo to you but once you step out of your home you are going to be indicted. You who was talking about aberration, don't you realise clothes are the aberration in nature? Even your favourite Hebrew myth acknowledges this fact.

Consent is one of the legs on which morality stands. Check it, stealing, rape, murder, pedophilia, assault, etc all violate that ideal. Consent is not the only principle on which morality stands and I didn't say it was.

BTW morality comes from ourselves both individually and collectively so your assertion that atheists don't take their morality from outside themselves is just wrong on several levels.

TenQ:
I think it is weird to you because you atheistic mind has been able to accept same sex attractions as NORMAL but you at least for now reject bestiality or cannibalism or necrophilia as normal (which is good).

You have described same sex attractions as relics of the archaic fables: I didn't want you to cherry-pick.

It seems you misunderstood what I said. I didn't say same sex attraction was a relic of archaic fables. I said society is discovering that it no longer has to tie itself to archaic fables when it comes to being. This is especially with regards to the 2 things you initially mentioned which I responded to, transgender and homosexuality. Your mentioning cannibalism, beastiality or necrophilia are outside the scope of my address but even if I was to address it I would tell you that I don't see those becoming normative because they represent one of the most egregious form of harm society will not tolerate and that is lack of consent. Animals don't consent, cannibal victims don't consent nor do dead bodies or their families. If society must maintain order this is something that must continue to be upheld. Same sex attraction or transgender does not violate this particular ideal or introduce harm to the society so they're not even remotely in the same class as these others.

Image123:
Again, you mixed apples with oranges. i wasn't referring to speed of wealth like you are implying. It is clear that you are currently richer than Oyedepo and his ministry were when they started, so what exactly stops you from doing what he has done? The speed, ease and efficiency of the well known projects like Canaanland and CU is what i refer to, i don't know or care much about his wealth like you seem to do. Bezos climbed up a well known Wall Street ladder and sold/sells diversified physical things to billions of people. Celebrate grace Reed.

I can't become a minister like Oyedepo because I don't have the same convictions he has that should be clear enough. When I mentioned multibillion generating organisation I wasn't referring to his wealth perse but to the capacity to fund whatever project he decides on. When you say ease and speed is it not because the money was available? Or else he'd have undertaken the project much earlier in his career as a minister. Also the contrast with Bezos is also about the so called speed and ease, Bezos started Amazon from his garage not from Wall Street and by 2018 was the richest man in the world by contrast he is at the finish line while Oyedepo is barely a tenth of the way. If there is some kind of supernatural component to Oyedepo's accent then it is not apparent and most especially not in building projects and jet purchases.

TenQ:
This means that there isn't much difference in our understanding except that you'll prefer to use "the mind" as an inseparable fusion of the hardware and software, whereas, I prefer to use "the soul" as a detachable software from the hardware of the body. I hope I'm correct with this view.

And you are correct that the soul/mind cannot survive without its hardware.

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

So back to the question, how can we tell the correct position?

TenQ:
Okay, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from.

What is the Soul?
The Soul is the self/personal/internal IDENTITY of a person: the source of our WILL, INTELLECT and EMOTION! These three effects of the Soul is called the MIND! Someone like me sees the soul as the Software of the Body (hardware). The software thus must interact with the hardware of the brain in other to control the body.

From the explanation above, I should ask you the question of what you consider as the MIND?
Is it just the physical brain?

The mind is not the brain. The mind is an emergent phenomenon birth by the interaction of the brain and other bodily systems. So while it is not the physical systems themselves it is firmly entrenched in them much like software. There is no way to have software without the hardware that contains it. In the case of the mind it is not an external influence injected into the body to control it but mechanisms of control that arise from the workings of physical systems.

Add to this diridiri's great summation of what the self is:

diridiri:
The self, as it appears to me, is an algorithm build to repair the gaps formed by our memories and our capacity for inner examination. It's most critical function then is to create a consistent "being" - comprised of our thoughts, feelings, actions, reactions and relationships. Functionally this makes sense: most mental operations executed by the brain are sequential, and the output generated by them depends heavily on the output generated at a previous iteration. Our reactions to experiences depend heavily on our previous reactions to similar experiences, and our personalities are constructed by our experiences and our reactions to said experiences, which are also strongly correlated to our personalities at the time. For a self-feeding algorithm such as this to function properly, we must consistently perceive ourselves in one single stream of consciousness, so as to avoid mental confusion.

The picture should be a little more clearer on how the body and the mind are an integrated unit.

However you still haven't answered the original question I put to you.

An American research team reported that it has possibly cured HIV in a woman for the first time. Building on past successes, as well as failures, in the HIV-cure research field, these scientists used a cutting-edge stem cell transplant method that they expect will expand the pool of people who could receive similar treatment to several dozen annually.

Their patient stepped into a rarified club that includes three men whom scientists have cured, or very likely cured, of HIV. Researchers also know of two women whose own immune systems have, quite extraordinarily, apparently vanquished the virus.

SOURCE

TenQ:
You mentioned it as an example of the so called ancient fables!

Do you think we should retain others but reject same sex attractions?

It was the focus of that piece of conversation.

Your question is weird.

PastorMIsBack:
I happily obliged as you can see

Duration: 1 minute


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsvTEWWyuUM


@LordReed, what do you think? Do I still look like a character from your computer game?

You know more than anything it was the fact that you were smiling ear to ear and seemed like you enjoyed the experience that takes the cake for me. But yeah the hair is nice, LoLz. And no my game character no longer looks like you.

TenQ:
Must you mention ALL the available relics of ancient fables?

The two mentioned are also part of those ancient fables!

I specifically pointed out same sex attraction but instead of focusing on that you went with what I didn't mention.

TenQ:
Then one day cannibalism will be legal. Bestiality will also be encouraged. They are relics of the ancient fables! LOL!!

Where did I mention those?

TenQ:
To answer any question of a complex nature, you move from known to unknown.

The question was knowing which position is correct from
1. The intangible Soul/Mind/Spirit as the fundamental source of living activities
OR
2. That the tangible organs/genes/brain/chemistry as the fundamental source of living activities

What are the knowns that can be used to comprehend or explain what our observations?

A good example of the known is a Computer/AI humanoid robot. It is entirely built up of physical tangible matter BUT is controlled by an intangible SOFTWARE!

A logical question to test the above hypothesis of similarity is to ask the question:
Is it possible to have a computer/AI humanoid robot that is devoid of a software?

The answer for now is NO!

Meaning that the hypothesis makes sense UNTIL a better one is put forward.

Do you have a better/contrary hypothesis?

It seems you don't understand the question. The mind and the body are a singular unit which much like an autonomous vehicle is a working combination of intangible and tangible, you on the other hand believe that mind is an aspect of soul/spirit that drives the body like a human driven vehicle. My question is how can we tell which position is correct.

The facts on ground do not support the view that some spirit/soul is driving the body. They have consistent point to the fact the mind and the body are a functional unit not a duality.

TenQ:
I didn't say that same sex attractions natural: I said even though they exist in nature they are an aberration.

Similarly, cannibalism exist in nature BUT it is an aberration. And humans don't have to be cannibalistic simply because it exist in nature!

Nobody is making the argument that because it exists in nature that humans have to do it so I dunno why you keep mentioning that.

If something exists in nature it makes it natural, it's in the very meaning of the word. Even if you call it an aberration it is still natural. Fortunately, it doesn't matter what you call it, society is waking up to the fact that being is not tied to ancient fables.

TenQ:
I think I answered you: I said
Too easy!

Logically look at the unknown from the point of view of the known.

Is it possible to have a complex AI humanoid robot that is not software driven?

What can be faulted here?

Because your response is not an answer to the question posed. I ask you for a clear way to distinguish between 2 different things and you respond with a rhetorical question whose answer provides nothing in a way of an answer.

TenQ:
Don't twist my words. I haven't said these don't occur in nature I said it is an aberration (it's not normal)

Isnt cannibalism also an aberration in animals?
Should humans also practice cannibalism because it occurs in nature?

So you are saying same sex attraction is natural but an aberration?

Nobody said we should do things because animals do it so I dunno why you are asking me that question.

AdorableSat:
Aww well done

Thanks.

God1000:
It's really a thing of joy and happiness to see your children all grown up at old age, this veteran actor must be very happy.
There's a sense of fulfillment here.

Nice. I hope one day to walk down the street with my grown up queens, beaming from ear to ear.

PastorMIsBack:
Beautiful

elantraceey:
Beautiful.

Thanks!

LordReed:
See the package I had made for my wife. Will post actually contents after she's opened it.

Package revealed.

Package revealed.

Cousin9999:
It's a hot cereal with a thick consistency. It's sort of like pap.

Ah, like oatmeal?

PastorMIsBack:
I gave my husband his Valentine’s Day gift this morning before he left for work, but he said nothing, so I thought he had forgotten. Then the delivery man delivered this �

Duration: 56 seconds


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmxkyd7RDcI

See Ghana love o! LoLz.

Your hubby is a sweet man nice one.