₦airaland Forum

FxMasterz:
Nothing new. We have seen HIV cured by the power of God.

But let me behave like atheists do: the information is false. Those guys who wrote that piece need to have their brains checked for believing in some bullshit.

Hahaha. That feels atheistic, isn't it?

Nope that's not how atheists behave. You are just being flippant.

The question I would ask is how can we verify that this is true.

Man unexpectedly cured of HIV after stem cell transplant

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2506595-man-unexpectedly-cured-of-hiv-after-stem-cell-transplant/

Jaephoenix, FxMasterz

Dazidon:
budaatum, LordReed, Kobojunkie , wirinet, etc



I know this message wasn't expected here.


I am considering drawing 4 people at a negotiable price

Do you mean drawing portraits for people?

Lawag3:
Okay makes sense.


Although I wasn't saying that because SG become obsolete then that's evidence against abiogenesis.

Unexplained complexity: There is no complete scientific explanation for how inorganic molecules transitioned into complex, self-replicating structures like cells.


I worded it like this
The fact thats there's no record or evidence of complete abiogenesis .

The fact, biogenesis is the corner stone of modern biology cells arise from preexisting cells.

Okay I'll do that.

Yeah I get you and that's why I said not having an understanding of the mechanisms is not evidence against the hypothesis.

Biogenesis works because we already have life going on the planet. The issue is we know that at some point there was no life on the planet and we are investigating how life got started here. Biogenesis cannot tell us how that happened, we needed a new hypothesis hence the abiogenesis hypothesis.

Lawag3:
Is if not ? Well I thought they were the same they have like the same meaning isn't it

What's the difference between the both of them?


Unexplained complexity: There is no complete scientific explanation for how inorganic molecules transitioned into complex, self-replicating structures like cells.
Experimental limitations: While experiments like Miller-Urey have shown that simple organic molecules can form, critics argue they don't replicate the full complexity of life's origins and that the early Earth's atmosphere may have been different than the conditions in the experiment.
Specific unsolved problems: Scientists are still working to reconcile key differences in the mechanisms required to synthesize the necessary components for life, such as the purine and pyrimidine bases needed for RNA nucleotides.

The above was copied from a simple Google search.


And the first point is the same or almost the same as the point I gave it just this one is worded better.


So yeah it's an evidence against abiogenesis aka life from non living matter.


I think I should tag you to the discussion I had with jaephoenix he gave excellent points that we talked about.

That is if you haven't read them already.

Spontaneous generation is the idea that that certain forms, such as fleas, could arise from inanimate matter such as dust, or that maggots could arise from dead flesh. This is very different from abiogenesis which hypothesises that life arose on the planet via a path way from simple chemicals to amino acids then to self replicating molecules then to simple cell structures then scaling up from that to more complex microscopic life forms.

People held on to SG because they did not know the mechanisms that caused a piece of rotten meat to breed maggots so they thought maggots spontaneously generate from rotten meat. That is not what abiogenesis suggests at all.

So no it is not evidence against abiogenesis. The fact that we cannot currently explain something doesn't make it untrue. There was also a time we couldn't explain thunder and lightning that did not then make them the works of gods.

You can link the discussion or tag me, I'll read it.

Lawag3:
The fact thats there's no record or evidence of complete abiogenesis .

The fact biogenesis is the corner stone of modern biology cells arise from preexisting cells

There's a reason the idea or theory of spontaneous generation has been discarded.

Nobody claimed there was complete evidence of abiogenesis, it is still a hypothesis so that is not evidence against it. I thought you have positive evidence that abiogenesis is impossible.

Abiogenesis IS NOT spontaneous generation, and spontaneous generation was never a theory.

jaephoenix:
Been good,bro. I have been missing some skirmishes in this space. Been active mostly in Instagram and Tiktok,especially the later. And also my japa things have been cooking. How are things

I'm aaight. Glad to hear things are cooking well for you.

Lawag3:
Sorry for the delayed response.

I have always loved to way you explain things . You used the word EVIDENCE.

While some experiments have indicated a progression from inorganic to organic basic amino acids which is considered a material from which the building blocks of life forms we should keep in mind that Amino acids are not life. They are not living.

So I'm tempted to say that there's overwhelming evidence that supports the idea or fact as I think it is , that a non living material or non living matter can not develop or give rise to living matter.

Or vow do you see it.


Don't worry I'll reply immediately I see your mention.

What is the evidence that supports the idea that non living material or non living matter can not develop or give rise to living matter.

jaephoenix:
Sorry I'm seeing this late. More than a month.
Right. So the human body is a crazy contraption. In medicine nothing is impossible. And these 'impossibilities' are not limited to folks of any particular religion. Christianity, muslims,atheists etc experience them. These include spontaneous cancer remissions and of course, in this case,spontaneous egestion of sharp objects like nails. So I can show you many examples of folks that swallowed nails and passed them out stresslessly without any prayers or interventions.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213576619302039
https://auctoresonline.org/article/spontaneous-passage-of-a-long-nail-through-the-gastrointestinal-tract-of-a-2-year-old-child-a-case-report

I'll stop at these 2 examples.
Peristalsis can move objects both forward and backwards at the same time and when they happen spontaneously the object turns around

So no,this is not a miracle though it's not common.
FzMasterz I have asked you to perform miracle in my hospital before but you have been dodging it like Neo in Matrix. Its more than one and half years now,still waiting...

Hey man. Glad to have you. How have you been?

budaatum:
Its not the first time he has made claims he can not support with evidence, my Lord, and just expects his word to be taken for it. And he is offended when it's not, hence this sort of payback thread from him, though I'd call it a shoot himself in the foot thread.

https://www.nairaland.com/6942843/matter-mind/27#113600432

Yeah, I would have thought he would know by now that doesn't work with me.

triplechoice:
I said, finish what you started first before jumping to another.

I want to see a Page number, no story.

triplechoice:
Your emotional reaction and selective reading prove my point. This is no longer a good-faith request. It is a deflection.

The links have been posted in this thread. The fact that you have either missed them or are pretending they don't exist is not my problem. Other users like,FxMasterz have seen them and engaged with the substance, which is why the conversation has moved forward. You are choosing to remain behind, demanding I repeat what is already on the record .

Moreover, you have completely ignored my substantive reply to your "JW website"analogy where I explained the critical difference between neutral sharing and active promotion and defense. You are not entitled to make new demands while refusing to engage with the answers you've already been given

Your tactic is very obvious and it is not an inquiry. Your demand for me to "mention two places" is a deliberate attempt to fracture a complete story into isolated,out-of-context fragments. The evidence I provided,the promotional thread,and the documented pattern of defense, tells a coherent story of attachment

So, it would be a silly and insulting request to ask me to produce a post where Buda explicitly writes "I am a member of AMORC here to defend it". Members of such groups,and Buda' in particular, operate through implication, promotion,and defense,not explicit confession.Anyone who doesn't know this ,is naive and ignorant.

The entire narrative is clear. Asking me to break this story into meaningless checklist is an insult to the intelligence of everyone who has been following this presentation

The burden is no longer on me to repost public links to your personal benefit. If you are sincerely curious, something you could have done at any point was to ask your friend, Buda' directly, "Hey, did you defend AMORC's doctrinal books in the past or when the Order came under attack in this forum? "Is that what triplechoice is referring to?

His answer would be more revealing than any further performance from you.

This deflection is over. I will not repost what is already before the public until you engage with the "JW website" rebuttal from me. Thank you

You are the one deflecting. It's simple matter for you to say on what page of this thread you posted the evidence or link to the evidence of budaatum defending AMORC from attack but instead here you are behaving the exact way you are accusing me of. LoLz.

At this point all you have is accusations, lengthy posts will not deflect from the lack of evidence. I will not do your homework for you to go look for it for you.

triplechoice:
With all due respect Reed, your bias is becoming more transparent .

I have already provided direct links to the evidence. You're now engaging in a tactic called "sealioning", the repeated bad-faith demand for evidence that has already been presented,to create a false impression that it doesn't exist

You didn't just join the thread.You have been here from the beginning and even from where it all began.

My previous reply to your JW analogy dismantled your argument by explaining the critical difference between neutral sharing and active promotion. You have not engaged with that rebuttal at all. Instead you are attempting to move the goalposts.

Sorry, I will not be led on this endless chase. The burden is no longer on me to repost what is already available.

It is now on you to either, engage substantively with the evidence and arguments I have already provided,or admit that you're not here for a good faith-discussion.

And until you do one of these,I will take your request as exactly what it is ,a deflection.

Don't forget you already admitted your bias and so based on this, you cannot be an honest judge here.. This line of questioning is closed

Thank you once again for your help

How is it bias to ask you for the evidence for what you are saying? You claimed that budaatum always rises to defend AMORC when it is attacked, asking you to show evidence of that is now bias? Be for freakin real please.

Sealioning? Where did you link evidence of budaatum defending AMORC from attack?

Don't use my statement as an excuse to not show the evidence, that is a punk move. Show the evidence let everyone see that budaatum is doing what you said was done. I am not the only one who will see it so how is my bias now going close the eyes of every other person? Abeg jor.

triplechoice:
Your hypothetical scenario is a false equivalence that ignores the specific context of Buda's actions.

Posting a single JW link in a neutral discussion is not the same as what Buda' did. The evidence shows a consistent pattern .

He didn't just drop a link. He used the first person "we" to describe AMORC and outlined the benefits one would gain by engaging with the group. This frames the information as an endorsement, not a neutral reference.

The link in the post was to download AMORC 's introductory materials, which are explicitly designed for potential new members,not for critical analysis.

This wasn't a one -off event. It is long history of him defending AMORC's doctrines from criticism, an action that makes no sense for a true atheist . He has never criticized the group instead what you find each time Amorc comes under attack is that Budaatum is always there to defend it.

Let me use your analogy correctly. If I consistently used "we"when talking about JWs, praised the benefits of being a Jehovah's Witness, distribute their "what we Believe" brochures,and passionately defended their doctrines online,you would be right to conclude I was an advocate or a member, even if I never explicitly said the words"please join"

The intent is clear from the totality of the actions . Buda wasn't just "sharing a link"he was promoting a group he is clearly affiliated with.

Members of Amorc are everywhere and they hardly reveal publicly their affiliation to the group. It is the same with Buda Visit the thread where he made that post and noticed that the title of the thread was written using the language only members of Amorc can understand.

The intent is clear from the totality of the actions. Buda wasn't just "sharing a link"; he was promoting a group he is clearly affiliated with.

See below the title of the thread for confirmation. It evidenced it is not the creation of an outsider. I am not the only person on Nairaland who knows Buda is an initiate of Amorc. I almost joined the group.So I know what I am talking about.

It is Latin which they mostly used in communicating certain messages within the group.

Quote 2 places budaatum defended AMORC from attack.

triplechoice:
You are not clear here.

"What do you mean by Budaatum even clearly says the opposite "

Budaatum said (paraphrased) don't join AMORC and pay the fees when you can read their literature for free. Does a recruiter say such a thing?

budaatum:
I'm so sorry I've taken so long my Lord. I guess I never thought of an audio version before now that triplechoice made me go look for Rosicrucian material and it occured to me. We must thank him.

Happy you remembered. I loved Aesop as a child, it was like discovering treasure when I read it.

budaatum:
My Lordreed, I promised you Aesop's and haven't delivered!

Here is where you can find audios.

https://archive.org/details/audio_bookspoetry?tab=collection&query=aesop

Holy Andromeda! Budaatum is recruiting me for Aesop! LoLz.

Thanks buda, now I can share these with my children. Lovely.

budaatum:
My Lord, I'm tired of them. And the annoying thing is they want me to shut up. So, for the next few days I'm going to do the exact opposite and post more Rosicrucian stuff so they can really convince themselves that buda is promoting Amorc. And the good thing is some of it will be audio, so even those who don't read can easily listen to it.

That should recruit them!

I remember you trying to recruit me for Socrates and Plato, you bad buda! LoLz.

FxMasterz:
Then you do that and provide recruitment links, and vehemently defend the position you don't believe in?

This is the point Triplechoice is trying to establish. Budaatum didn't just share for the purpose of education. He aimed at recruitments and even vehemently defended his materials against those who had opposing views.

So if I post a JW website link it means I am trying to recruit for JW? It doesn't follow especially as budaatum didn't explicitly ask anyone to join AMORC. Budaatum even clearly says the opposite, that would be a very strange thing to do if actively seeking to recruit don't you think?

triplechoice:
Your response completely misses the point and misrepresents the nature of my accusation. This was never about whether an atheist can "share educative materials"

The issue is the context, content, and intent behind Buda' s actions,which go far beyond neutral sharing .

An atheist might share a Bible verse to critique it . Buda created a post advertising the benefits of joining AMORC, using the word, "We", and providing direct links for recruitment.No principled atheist recruits for spiritual organisation whose core tenets they reject.

Moreover, an atheist critiques religious claims. Budaatum has a history of passionately defending AMORC 's specific doctrines and materials from external criticism. He acts as a guardian of their beliefs,not a Skeptic of them.

Furthermore, if Budaatum is a true atheist,he should reject AMORC's teachings on the soul, cosmic consciousness,and mental alchemy as unscientific. So why would he promote and defend books containing these very doctrines?. This is the heart of the intellectual dishonesty .

Sharing a religious text for critical analysis is one thing.Actively recruiting for a religious-esoteric order and defending its dogma is another. The former is consistent with atheism, the latter is the behaviour of an advocate or a member

The evidence shows Budaatum has consistently done the latter. That's the accusation, and it remains unaddressed

Please don't allow Budaatum to trick you and make you defend him concerning this.

He has no reasonable defense to give.

Here below is an screenshot of the post where Budaatum advertised the benefits of joining Amorc, attaching contact details for whom to contact in Nigeria and with a link to download their Introductory material for potential new members.

And you call this what?

Sharing educational materials. Abeg

@FxMasterz ,I have been engaged with other things hence the reason I couldn't reply immediately to Budaatum latest attempt to create confusion. Look at the image below and ask Lordreed how is it equivalent to sharing educational materials about AMORC.


Use the link below to visit the thread where it was taken from .The title of the thread alone is enough for anyone who knows about the Order to know it was created by an initiate of the group. I just dey laugh.

https://www.nairaland.com/302215/manifesto-positio-fraternitatis-rosae-crucis#4289185

I was responding to FxMasterz and apparently, he sees the point. If you think your accusation has not been properly addressed, then that's between you and budaatum.

DeepSight:
+
Let me slide into this from a different direction. From my ardent defense of the rights of Palestinians many people seem to presume I am a lover of Islam.

An ideology and religion that I actually detest.

But why would I not, from conscience, believe that a people must be free?

Spot on. We can total promote what is good and just without believing the religious dogma.

FxMasterz:
Buda is cleared.

Triplechoice should take note.

However, I have never witnessed any Nairaland atheist sharing religious materials for the purpose of education except for criticism.

If that means atheists don't have the same constraints religious people have, it means atheists don't actually know what they're doing. I cannot teach anyone about something I don't believe in. That's hypocrisy.

Buda is cleared of being called out for hypocrisy but lordreed has said it's a general thing among atheists.

It is not hypocrisy exactly because we don't see it as something to believe. It is like teaching someone about Aesop's Fables, they are stories meant to convey some sort of morality or practical advice. Aesop doesn't need you to believe that the sun can talk because it says so in a story, no. Learn the lesson the story is trying to convey. That is how we view your religious text.

sometimes too it might be a merely academic reference, like telling you what book and chapter the story of Bathseba and David is in. It doesn't mean we believe the Bible.

FxMasterz:
That confirms what Triplechoice has observed about you.

All the links you shared prove beyond reasonable doubts that you're not an atheist. No atheist will go anywhere sharing educative materials relating to any form of religion, whether esoteric or not, except for the purpose of criticism. Ask lordreed.

Ehhh, this is not correct. Atheists share educative materials about religion. Atheists don't have that kind of constraint you religious people usually have ie thinking that sharing religious material means you believe or are promoting that religion. You for instance would never go to the Islam section because you don't want that badge on your profile, you think it makes you somehow treacherous to your religion, an atheist has no such qualms.

DeepSight:
+
Na why I like you be dis.

You can firmly tell anyone off. No respecter of persons.

And to add, a deeply logical mind.

Thank you DeepSight. You also have a special place in my mind.

HeatSeeker:
Such a disappointing thread.

What were you hoping to see?

budaatum:
Then I must have lovingly and kindly promoted it to you my Lord, if not maliciously.

Please let triplechoice know that his point has been proven to you, thank you.

You did no such thing and if you did I would have told you off.

budaatum:
This is nonsense, my Lord. Malice intended!

Be objective and completely put aside your bias and love please!

Did buda promote AMORC to you?

You maliciously did not! Bad buda! LoLz.

DeepSight:
+
To add to this, the Ancient Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, is not anything anyone should be wary of. It is one of the orders for the search for deep esoteric knowledge. By the nature of such societies, much is kept hidden but revealed as one advances. I have not just had a brush with it, but even considered being initiated. I frankly see little wrong with it save some tendencies which suggest the superiority and inferiority of races - which everyone knows I am allergic to. When I was doing my NYSC, I was introduced to it by a gentleman who was a client of the firm I was attached to. There is much that is enlightened about it. Much.

Therefore I also see not particular reason to hang Budatuum even if he is an open AMORC person. I myself have also associated with Eckankar, which has some levels of similarity.

What I can see from the issues raised by Triplechoice is simple. He suspects Buda of being duplicitous and dishonest. That may well be true, but I have no idea and it is not my concern. Generally I consider the entire subject unimportant and somewhat petty.

Buda, like many of us, may just be a seeker for truth and be as confused as every honest seeker of truth is.

I agree there is nothing to fear in these things. It is just that in my neck of the woods if I must participate in family I cannot be associated with such things, talk about giving a dog a bad name in order to hang it. It is bad enough that I am openly atheist, add AMORC and it is all over. LoLz.

For those who are getting ideas, I prize family above almost everything else.

triplechoice:
@Lordreed, let me start by sincerely thanking you once again. Your help in securing the screenshot was invaluable and demonstrated a commitment to getting to the truth,for which I am grateful.

This is why feel I need to address your latest comment. The statement ,"see how they are falling over themselves to describe you", shifts the focus away from the substance of the issue and into a realm of personal drama in favour of the other party.


I had hope you would continue in your role as a neutral judge. A fair judgement would ask why the evidence of "advertising" Amorc was withheld for so long, not celebrate the confusion that withholding it caused. Your comment, while perhaps meant in jest, unfortunately makes light of the very deception that was the heart of the problem.

When we debate, I expect the person on the other side to be genuine. Buda refused to do that. He chose to operate behind a disguise to mock and discredit others. That is the core of the issue.

A truthful person with nothing to hide does not withhold exonerating evidence for two years. A truthful person does not secretly bump a thread to a new location and then stay silent when they are accused of deleting it, all to create confusion. He only produced the "evidence" when he was boxed into a corner in this thread. His actions prove his dishonesty.


My goal here on this thread was never to simply "describe" Budaatum. The core of this matter has always been, and remains, a single, demonstrable act of intellectual dishonesty: the deliberate suppression of evidence for two years, only admitting to it when cornered. This is a matter of a action and principle, not an obsession with his online personality.

But to now make a statement that implicitly excuses the dishonesty at the core of this quarrel is, itself taking a side. And I am not saying I am a completely honest person, nobody is.But too much of everything is bad.

And once again, I am not confused and "falling over" to describe Budaatum . I understand the tactics of misdirection and disguise, often employed for self-preservation. My issue was never his affiliation,but his decision to extend that deception to our interactions.

This is why I have decided to disengage. It is futile to seek honest discourse with someone who operates this way, and it is equally futile to debate the principles of honesty with those who would joke them away.

I only blame myself for not ignoring him the first time. He's not the only one here I can interact with so why should I bother myself.

I chose to stand on a point of principle. I have made my case. I now choose to step away. Thank you again for your initial help

I have to confess that I am somewhat biased. I love budaatum even though we don't always agree. Budaatum is the most eclectic person I have interacted with. In all my interactions with budaatum I never see any reticence about sharing knowledge of any sort. I was very much aware when budaatum started that AMORC thread, in fact we even discussed my own brush with AMORC. Budaatum has always shared knowledge at any opportunity to do so. So the way your accusation came and the way others are describing budaatum is amusing to me. However, I do respect you and I always treat what you say to me with due seriousness that is why I put aside my love for budaatum and listened to you with an open mind. I even said to budaatum that it is possible you are just misunderstanding. Maybe it's my bias but I never see any malice in budaatum's interactions, same way I see you but you obviously don't have to interact with anyone you don't want to.

LMAO!

DeepSight:
+
It reminded me of the word "good" does not mean "good" . . . .

DeepSight:
+
The mental gymnastics made to justify the abominable idea that a Jewish man is God.


+
Is he not also God himself according to you?

And wait, are you not also a Son of God?

Even the bible calls Lucifer a Son of God as well.


+
Right. So God was praying to himself in heaven. Got it.


+


LordReed abeg helep me check this statement!


+
Leave Islam. The bible itself says whatever a man sows the same shall he reap. In Divine Justice, it is absurd to say that one person is punished for the sins of another.

I can only but join you to laugh at the mental gymnastics.