₦airaland Forum

FrancisTony:
LOL! I agree with logic and emotional type.

I think Muslim are worst when it comes to logic though because their faith is kinda stronger than Christian own. They don't think outside box and ain't logical at all.

Emotion- The first I came on Religion section and saw atheist constructive argument. I was like, they are right, but emotion came into play, that I began attacking their argument outta point. Maybe it's becaues I was really scared of hell fire.

ihedinobi2:
LESSON SIX....


If God is that which possesses all the power and all the authority, there can only be one God. If more than one entity, for want of a better word, exists that possesses such power and authority, they must all exist in absolute unity, such unity that they must necessarily be one being with one will.

This is all to explain what a true God is. It is that which cannot be opposed, that which is superior to absolutely everything without exception.

If that is the case, try to imagine what it meant for Peter to look at a man that they knew functioned almost completely like every other man and call him God.

Do you get the enormity of his statement yet?

Dapo777:
Wow,didn't know someone else has created a similar thread elsewhere.

ihedinobi2:
LESSON FOUR...


GOD. That's a word. A word that has affected and still affects the world in profound ways. But what does it really mean? Who or what is God? What idea does the word or is the word supposed to invoke in a mind? And thus what was the big deal in Peter's declaration?

Dictionary meanings say a lot of things. But what does the word evoke in your mind when you hear it? Power, not so? Irresistible will, right? The general idea is one of Infinity and Limitlessness. And every myth and superstition various cultures have held have played around that theme. There were disappointing gods who failed to live up to their name, like the Greek gods which were more products of romantic storytelling than of philosophy. There were those dark and terrifying gods that humans only tried to keep at bay.

What really does God mean? What has all of human philosophy been feeling around for when it speaks of God?

Think about it for a moment.

Heathen:
Jilboob
JilBoob
Jil's- Boobs
BOOBS
Oh my
I have WOOD

SNCOQ3:
Doesn't this illustration contradict your materialist world view?
Who is this you that is making a moral choice of giving yourself a good or bad purpose?
You don't seem to get it. If this you is the same as what you described as the "blank chalkboard" (yourself), then their is no such thing as a "blank chalkboard".


Its interesting that your idea of universal morality is not "morality by consensus".
In order words, just like logic, universal morality is transcendental - if this is what you mean, then its just another name for objective morality.


how so? giving that morality is transcendental- the choice of stealing should not be predicated on personal advantage.


care to explain?

SNCOQ3:
God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

SNCOQ3:
Well, I consider universal morality a face-saving "alternative" to objective morality. Its a humanistic diversion of the the destructive logical conclusion of atheist belief: the consequence of relativistic and nihilistic mindset.


They are far different the way a plate of beans is different from the stomach.
As for independence, you have to elaborate.


That is not the argument.
Since your life is a blank slate, who is this morally-aware being that is doing the filling?
The point is, you cannot hold that you are a moral being and still consider your life a blank slate.

ihedinobi2:
Well, if someone keeps banning you for no reason and you insist on staying within his sphere of influence, what am I to call you, huh?

SNCOQ3:
See decree. You must be god.



If your life is a blank slate, who is this you that is filling the 'blank slate' or using this 'tool' that is your life?
Why is this you a moral being/morally concious, and as once argued for universal morality in the person of cheers01

logicboy01:
The officials in Indonesia are worried about a current rising trend- women wearing jilboobs.

A Jilboob (Jilbab + b00bs or Hijab + b00bs) refers to a hijab/burkha/jilbab or any associated cloaked dress worn by Arabs/muslim women that is either tight around "sensual parts" or is combined with form-fitting accessories or clothing.

https://www.liputnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/fenomena-jilboobers.jpg[img]http://www.ladyo.it/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/jilboobs.jpg[/img]



http://www.styleite.com/news/religious-leaders-crack-down-on-jilboobs-women-who-wear-tight-clothes-with-hijab/



tags; deols, sissie, maclatunji, tbaba12345, lanrexlan, rilwayne01, kay17, fellis

MrAnony1:
If this is true, then there is no such thing as a good or a bad life and consequently there are no good or evil actions.

ihedinobi2:
So I have already made a point?

Lol. Just stick around, dude.

Btw, I had a feeling it was you. Your obssession with Mac is incredible.

SNCOQ3:
First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

God's intent for man's design is good.


God is the standard.


"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

ihedinobi2:
Lol. Did Mac ban you and you came straight to the Christian Chatbox to "retaliate"?

Anyway, that is not what I have said, my friend. If this interests you, keep attentive and you'll soon discover what makes a Christian one.

MrAnony1:
Lol...the examples you gave are fallacious (If you can't see how yet, ask me and I'll explain).

MacCantStopMe:
Anticipating Anony's dodging/twisting of the comment in big font;
OPTION ONE- PUSHING THE ARGUMENT AWAY
-"Your ought=/=good examples are irrelevant to my own ought/purpose/good statements"
-"haha you misunderstood my argument on "ought/purpose"" (ihedinobi misunderstood technique/jutsu)

ihedinobi2:
LESSON FIVE...

As the Bible says, there are gods many and there are lords many. The mark of a god is power. The title is synonymous with power, absolute power.

Every time that the word is used the thought it provokes is power. Generally, it is absolute power that we mean. For instance, Mars was called the god of war. Even though Jupiter was held as king of the gods, Mars was expected to hold supreme power over war.

Amadioha was regarded as the god of thunder so he was regarded as having complete authority and control over thunder. Now, even though Chukwu was the High God, the god who held supreme authority over all other gods, Amadioha was regarded as holding supreme power over thunder. It would be a power that Chukwu granted him, of course, but his no less.

Do you follow? God is a term synonymous with total power and limitless authority.

If you have been following the discourse right now, you can see where the myths and superstitions break down. If a God has supreme power and authority, it should not be possible that it should be subject to any other power and authority. That would belie their claim to supremacy. Still, the idea is that they are supposed to have total power and control. That is what being a god means.

Let that simmer a bit.

AgentOfAllah:
Good is that which we ought to do.



The only person that has pertinaciously insisted on transmogrifying "is" to "ought" is you.



So, surely you read the part about "ought" being a prescription for a specified goal? Hence, if you say "good is that which we ought to do" you know it should be predicated on some purpose. Tell us what that purpose is! Do you mean it is what we ought to do: If we are to be happy, if we are to make it to heaven, if we want Sunny Ade to sing a Christmas Carroll? Either you define "that which we ought to do" or you define the goal of your prescription.

[size=14pt]I can prove the vagueness of your statement with the following examples:
Example 1: I believe it is good not to interfere in the lives of other living things, but I also believe I ought to interfere in their lives by eating them. To me, this good=/= ought to do

Example 2: A thief mugs a woman's handbag at gunpoint. I believe it is good to stop that thief, but I'd be stupid to try and do so, so I know I ought not do it. Again good=/= ought to do.

These are real life examples. So clarify what you mean by that vague statement because even though you've spent the last few pages insisting it is self-evident, it is not at all clear what it means. Your alternative would be to acknowledge that good is an undefinable, in which case your statement is meaningless.[/size]

MrAnony1:
Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

vedaxcool: Seun, I suggest u commence an investigation on the identity and alternate moniker of the disturb individual who keeps spamming the Islam section, the individual seem to have taken great pains in deleting all his previous post with only a few left. You could look through your backup to view the individuals previous post "ooseven". This sort of madness should not be tolerated.
ooseven is behind the nonsense picture going on in this section!
ooseven=007 we can all remember who recently used a moniker with 007 - mersironaldo007-Logic007. Seun investigate and permanently ban this individual from Nairaland entirely, such sick and mentally unstable person should be referred to an asylum where his type can get the help they so desperately need! Forming big man and ignoring this post would only show how quick u r in tolerating nonsense by foolish and daft people against muslims.

Rilwayne001: I thought as well.

Definitely he is the one was spreading that gunk.

The guy is no doubt sick in the head

tbaba1234: Why are you spreading your filth and spamming this section?