₦airaland Forum

Maestro21:
I'm not doing free lectures today. Try another day.

Yeah I thought so, nothing but an empty barrel.

capnies:
BIG BANG IS AN ASSUMPTION NO SINGLE PROVE. NOT EVEN QUALIFY AS A HYPOTHESIS MORE THEN THEORY, IT WAS DESIGNED TO EXPLAIN GOD AWAY BUT IT AINT WORKING. CREATION IS A MORE PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION OF THE ORIGIN OF MAN THAN BIG BANG. I WILL TELL YOU WHY
* IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST THEN EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE, YOU CAN'T TALK OF MORALITY, WHERE DID CONSCIENCE COME FROM, WHAT OF DREAMS THAT TELLS WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN
* HOW WILL BIG BANG AND IT BROTHER EVOLUTION EXPLAIN HOW MALE AND FEMALE CAME TO BE . WHY HAS EVOLUTION STOPPED WHY HAS MAN REFUSED TO EVOLVE TO OVERCOME SICKNESSES AND DISEASES PLAGUING MAN. WHY ARE WE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO FIGHT THIS DISEASES INSTEAD OF JUST EVOLVING TO OVERCOME IT. HOW CAN REPRODUCTION BE PART OF EVOLUTION. ETC

You must have gotten your own scientific information from the 18th century. The BBT is a well established theory with ample evidence. Go read reputable scientific journals not quack websites.

Valar Morghulis. Rest in peace.

tammyf:
My business with God Almighty...thanks for ur concern.

Thanks for yours too but we'll take our chances. LoLz

tammyf:
Too risky a risk......

Just like you you are risking thousands of hells aren't you?

I don't think that's a good idea. What I think you should do is be more discerning about the groups you join and understand there are no true altruistic persons. Everybody does things for various reasons that always contain a kernel of selfishness or serves some personal purpose. Another thing is this realisation should make you willing to call out behaviours or actions that you think go to far within any group you are a part of.

Don't shut yourself from taking part in life just because you are living with flawed people. This is the world and we live in it, enjoy what you can where you can.

tammyf:
Then I accept it as my fate bro

Then why shouldn't accept that not believing your favourite god as a risk we are willing to take?

Nice

Tamarinda:
PLEASE DO NOT JUDGE ME SINCE YOU ARE NOT IN MY SHOES
After much deliberation and thoughts regarding the circumstances I have experienced in life, I have concluded it's better I trade something to SATAN.
I have heard people saying certain wealthy individuals traded something to achieve a certain level of wealth. For me, i just want to achieve my dreams and Ambition; a legacy.

I don't want all the money in the world! No! I don't want so much wealth, I just want to live a convenient life devoid of too much pain, hunger, abject suffering.

Before you say its vanity, it all ends on Earth and I will suffer in the afterlife, yes ! I have given it a good thought and i am prepared for that. The Yoruba says, "there is nothing bad in trying the household of two wives to know which is better".
I have dedicte and stayed long enough with God that answers no prayer, let me trade with Satan and see what I get.
The purpose of this thread is that I am looking for credible guidance on how to trade my soul to SATAN

Please do not judge me. I am making my own choices based on my circumstances. I don't know yours

Satan and the god are 2 sides of the same coin, the coin of fairytales. Neither side can help you. You are going to have harness all that you are and all the resources available to you realistically to move up. There is no magic to change your situation.

tammyf:
I will rather believe in God here on earth and die to know there is no God than not to believe and atlast find out there is God ....take that to the bank bro since u believe there is no ultimate designer of the world.

What if you believe in the wrong god and die to find that out? We even yet to know how dead people know things.

Equal2DeTask:
That is the only thing in the entire universe that is not possible....ogbeni, remove ur mind.

I thought with your god all things are possible? So there is something your god cannot do?

Monogamy:
Interesting

The current Afghanistan president is a puppet to the West which ordinary Afghans detest.. At the same time, the Taliban can't win without the same West

This is the problem with western involvement in other countries, they trigger the extremists to take over and make things even worse.

keppler:
Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life


I laughed hard when reading your link.
Let me put it in perspective
Me: "Show me where and when humans realized that the best way to survive is due to cooperation" (of course, which apparently birthed morality)
Reed: "We've found evidence of ancient humans in groups. Therefore, they cooperated to enhance their chance of survival"
That's funny I believe but that's what could be inferred from your link. (as related to my question?
Maybe I'm wrong sha, you could kindly show me evidence of such history when they realized that coming together is the solution.

Wait, are you asking for a specific date and event?

Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf

I must confess, I was disappointed.
I was expecting to see mechanisms, that through the known path ways put forward for evolution or otherwise, would explain how organisms should develop abilities such as: abstract thinking, planning, comprehension of complex ideas and maybe languages (which are obviously the abilities that separates us from animals). I don't think anyone need paper to explain that experience is the best teacher which is the general tone of the message therein.
What we want to see is mechanisms for those abilities I mentioned, which the paper itself calls nonevolved cognitive competencies. In fact, it says in a place that this type seems designed. Implication of which I should be silent, after all, the "holy" word - evolution has been used to saturate the piece.

I may be wrong anyway, so you could kindly provide the mechanism for such abilities that I claimed that animals can never develop from the paper.

Read the conclusion for a summary of the mechanisms. As for the specific cognitive functions you mentioned I dunno if you are aware that several types of animals have displayed some form of these cognitiveabilities, such as problem solving, tool use, communication, language, theory of mind, culture, agriculture, self recognition, object permanence, social learning, episodic memory, etc. When you say animals can never develop cognitive abilities what exactly do you mean.

Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world.
Let me also put this in perspective (and of course, no need for the low blows. I removed them here but intact in your mention anyway)
data about chimpanzee (from journals): We discovered that Chimpanzees will prefer not to work with any individual chimpanzee which are seen to sabotage group effort of acquiring food and dominants of the group will aggressively attack the freeloader in most cases to retrieve their meals, while subordinates to the free loaders would prefer to collapse meal so that no one gets the food.
Popular science media: Like Humans, Chimps Reward Cooperation and Punish Freeloaders and other misleading interpretations.
Reed: Chimpanzees are known to punish members of group for violating social codes.

Very funny way of anthropomorphism which directly changed the meaning of observed phenomenon. In fact, what was observed was what should be expected and has nothing to do with our definition of morality.

What is the definition of morality?

Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.
No need to resort to the Tu Quoque fallacy, or low blows. You should only defend your claim.
Your claim: "Those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad"
Do you stand by this your claim?
If yes, using this example:
To reduce competition for food, a group attack to kill or drive another group from that source of food
Is this an example of goodness?

You have a funny way of looking at conversations. I give you an example of the thing you are asking me and I answered your question that it was not good for the victims and you call it a fallacy. Also I have properly addressed your question, it was not good for the victims even though the group who took the action thought it was but our morality has evolved away from that type of behaviour.

keppler:
Thinking about a concept is experienced? Again, I rechecked definition of experienced and was wondering how you came about your word gymnastics.

Which dictionary did you check?

If this is what you want to resort to, then I'll also end this here. Else, what was your primary source for his life and death that you said you knew? Now you are asking what tomb? Are you implying that you now reject those PRIMARY SOURCES? After all, the secondary sources cannot be trusted (if you want to claim those) if the primary sources are rejected a priori.

Anyway, do have a wonderful time

Which secondary sources talk about Jesus' burial in a tomb?

Maestro21:
I know you are not well-studied but it is folly to assume others are like you.

I know you are not like me, you have puke for brains so how can you be like me. What was in the Fauci emails that is making you giddy again? LOL.

Maestro21:
I believe you mean "seeing". Remember when you thought you knew anything and were shown how insignificant your knowledge base is?

Thanks for the correction. LMAO! So because you corrected me on a simple omission it means my knowledge base is insignificant? Look at zombie reasoning. LMFAO!

Maestro21:
What are you mentioning me your ancestors for? I don't understand. Nothing has happened where?

Because I miss see your zombie posts. LMAO!

Maestro21:
When did Fauci's emails leak?

LoL! Is that the thing that was going to happen? Have you even gone through the emails or are you regurgitating the zombified mess that is your diet.

Maestro21:
I predicted a zombie outbreak? Do I look like the CDC website?

Hi American Zombie, we are in August now nothing has happened or did it happen and we didn't catch it?

Qanon conspiracies are getting more dangerous.

Man allegedly confesses to killing his kids, refers to QAnon conspiracies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtgNCo4HRu4

Pelecius:
I guess I need to put it this way since you seem to be turning it around
You claimed that Every objectively existing thing can be seen and experienced by all.

Now, are you standing by your definition of objectively existing thing?
If yes, Laws of logic cannot be seen and experienced. In fact, it's not just a concept, it is transcendent.
Hence, do they exist?

The laws of logic are description of something anybody can figure out ie they are a concept, anybody can experience concepts if they are taught or think about them. Are you thinking experiencing an objectively existing thing means you must be able to physically touch and see them?

The case of the empty tomb is summarized thus:
If the tomb was not empty, it'll be easy for critics to point to his Jesus dead body to deny the claim of his resurrection by his disciples. The fact that they couldn't do that, but resorted to the irrational idea that his disciples stole his body proved that the tomb was empty.
That's what I meant. I felt you'd know that, but I was wrong in such assumption.

What tomb? That is the first question. How do we even know he was buried in a tomb and not a mass grave like all Roman criminals normally are?

Another question would be if there was the dead body of Jesus how would we know it was the Jesus of the Bible?

Dtruthspeaker:
A person Like you who does not know hydrogen and oxygen can never identify and separate them in a container containing 2H20, how much more distilling evidence from argument.

You are shipwrecked on this rock.

LoL, keep fooling yourself. You are now an expert in chemistry. LMAO!

Dtruthspeaker:
If you knew what evidence is, you would have known, and in Truth, you do know that "I know how to drive", Is Always Evidence And Proof Of Ability to Drive and a further evidence and proof of a drive which has already been executed by another person, in this case, your wife BECAUSE A CAR CANNOT DRIVE ITSELF AND SOMEBODY MUST DRIVE IT,
IS THE ISSUE



Change of Post and Out of Issue. The issue is not "How did your wife know how to drive" But "Who took the car away?"

Learn to stick to Topics and stop flying off points.

Stop talking nonsense, you have provided no evidence, you just like to fool yourself.

Might have been food poisoning ie bacteria in contaminated food. They should not be so fast as to jumping to the conclusion that he was deliberately poisoned.

Preciousgirl:
This is a heavy breakfast
Not your usual tea and beverage stuff
Your wife puts this on the table before going to work

How will u react?

With kisses and be ready to open my wallet. LoL

Pelecius:
You may be right or wrong.

Why would he be wrong? Doesn't your god know all things?

Pelecius:
I don't understand when you say there is no evidence. The history of humans clearly delineates this development, that is the evidence I am referring to.

Are you saying human history is just a story or what?
It's the history I want you to show me. When and where did humans decided that coming together will help survival? What were they doing before coming together?

You are yet to show me the history you talked about. So why asking me?

Read up about the development of human civilisations. You will note how human societies went from small closely related family groups to the large cities and nation states we have now.

Good place to start: https://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/social-life

Other animals have not developed the cognitive abilities we have
It's not that THEY HAVE NOT. They can't. There's no known mechanism for development of cognitive ability.

Yes there is. Read: Evolution and Cognitive Development http://web.missouri.edu/~gearyd/EvoCogDev%5BChap%5D.pdf

while they have rudimentary elements of morality or codes they are not as sophisticated as ours. Example, some animals will refuse to shock another of their species even though they know they'll be rewarded if they do. Also Chimpanzees are known to punish members of their groups for violating social codes. These are rudimentary aspects of morality even though they can't write them or communicate them to us.
Most of these though impressive, are just attempts to anthropomorphize animals. Especially, that of the chimpanzee. The interpretation of the observation were highly anthropomorphic (I wondered how such was interpretation of not even debated. Maybe to give credence that they share ancestor in support of the ruling theory).
Anyway, those are not morality to them. It's more of survival instincts. Hence, coming together doesn't provide support for we know as morality

Of course it is anthropomorphising them, that's the way we make sense of the world. Just like how you anthropomorphise your god. You hear people claim your god is beyond space and time yet he has hands, eyes, ears and can eat food. It is no surprise that we describe the world around us in human terms, for instance we call ships her and say things like father land. In which other terms would we have described it if not our own. Ants don't call anthills anthills, it is we humans who call it that.

The animals are behaving just like us at a rudimentary level and while they won't describe what they are doing as morality, we who have the sophistication of language can recognise the patterns and describe it thus.

Never said it connotes good. It is the basis from which morality begins. To survive is a goal, those things that help survival of the group are seen as good and the ones that don't are seen as bad. It's a group dynamic not an individual thing alone.
Alright, my bad.
But what helps survival of a group can't still be termed as good. Example: to reduce competition of food which helps survival, a group could attack to kill or drive away another set of people or animals from that source of food.
Is that a definition of good to the victims, using your logic?
In same vein, should allowing others to share from the limited resources, when they can easily be sent away be regarded as bad? Since it doesn't help the survival of such group.

Is this not what we see playing out in the world? Even your bible says the Israelites killed off portions of the Levant in order to establish themselves, was it good for the victims? Nope. Thankful that type of dynamic has slowly evolved away, we are now largely a cooperative group, we are learning more and more how to share finite resources and how to build systems that allow us to stretch those resources to benefit more people. Is it prefect? Nope. Will it be? I doubt it. No human system so far is prefect, not even religious ones that claim to be birthed by the inspiration of otherworldly beings called gods.

Now here we go again with this atheistic worldview. We have spoken about this before that there is nothing like atheistic worldview. If it were me now you'd be claiming I am not listening yet here you are unable to change
It's you having good conscience in which the implications of such philosophy does not agree with you, making you to deny that there's an atheistic worldview. (Cognitive dissonance?)
In fact, same Dawkins I mentioned was asked in an interview that such implications would result to a moral vacuum. He replied:
All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth
Of course, you'd object that that's him and not you.

LoL. I have no problem with Dawkins views, they are his and I am free to disagree with any portion of it. Unlike what you call an atheistic worldview, the atheistic position is not a monolith and is linked by the only thing we have in common, a lack of belief. You quoting Dawkins as if his views must necessarily be mine shows a failure of yours to understand a fundamental difference between an atheist and a religious adherent, we have no dogma or priests. You are trying to read into it your own religious structures and you will continue to make that mistake as long as you do that.

Atheism is compatible with the fact the people care so I dunno where you got the idea that it is opposed to the fact
It's not that it is not compatible, but the crux is that it is indifferent.
Hence, atheists can be good people (depending on the definition) or bad. The godless world doesn't really care whatsoever. It's more about surviving and passing on ones gene

You mean godless people don't care about your brand of morality, we have ours. That our morality is based on natural systems doesn't make us indifferent, humanism for instance is a position that anybody can subscribe to without becoming bogged down by religious strictures and yet shows that the universal brotherhood of man is a possibility.

Pelecius:
Evangelism is done more in New atheism than in Christianity, with high priests: Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse, Christopher Hitchens, etc with anti God sites serving as 'worship' centers inorder to get half truths to cement their beliefs

LMAO! Na wa o, the level of projection on display no be here. Bwahahahahaha!

Pelecius:
Well, I used that since you defined what objectively exists as what can be seen and experienced.
And the laws of logic can't be seen nor experienced, yet exist.

The laws of logic are descriptive, they can be taught to anybody just like any other concept. Concepts are not tangible material that you pass by hand to someone else, they are communicated so that others understand it. This is not a valid example, try again.

Well, subjective experience was not the only proof. The empty tomb has no explanation also. Hence, folks tried to argue that he didn't really die, in order to explain the empty tomb.

No empty tomb has been found that one could conclusively say Jesus was buried in so again not evidence of a resurrection.

Dtruthspeaker:
Change of post!

The issue is, I presented myself and my ability to create as evidence, unfortunately for you, you do not have the True Knowledge of determining whether I can be an evidence or not.

So you are stuck with no valid place to go.

Nonsense. I know how to drive is not evidence my wife knows how to drive. An argument can can be put forth that I could have taught her but it is not evidence it is an argument. Professor of logic indeed. You have not presented evidence stop deceiving yourself.

Dtruthspeaker:
This is where the scantiness of your knowledge of evidence fails you and must fail you.

I did not say if A or B (which is Logic, i am a Professor of Logic also).

I gave evidence and directed you that I and all like me, on the ability to create, are evidence.

It is not evidence because you are not the god in question. You telling me that because you can create therefore there is a creator, if A therefore B. This again is an argument not evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:
Nope! I had made myself and my ability to create "the evidence".

That is called an argument, if A therefore B. That is not evidence.