₦airaland Forum

thehomer: You're confused again I see. I'm asking you to show me that something you claim as being different is actually different.



This is just more of your confusion. I'm asking you to show that it could be different. It is like you claiming that you know people travel faster than light. And I ask you to show me that it could be the case that people actually move faster than the speed of light.



This is why you should try to reflect on what is being asked. We're talking about the universe not an axiom. Or do you think that the universe is an axiom? The "it" there refers to your claim about the universe not a claim about axioms.

This is what I have claimed: It is possible to have different physical laws defining our universe
This is what you have demanded: Is it physically possible for the universe to operate under different physical laws?
This is the clarification I have asked for: In what sense do you mean "physical"?
Please clarify so that I can answer you.

Was there ever nothing?

There was always God

Pretty much all objects larger than fundamental particles fit this description so it isn't helpful.

really, how does a grain of sand, a drop of water, a pile of stones, a bacteria cell, a house, a sheet of paper, a novel and a cellphone fit this description? Be sure to talk about their constituent parts and how they all work in harmony according to a specific pattern.
Secondly, can you tell the difference between a heap of bricks and a brick house? Can you tell which of them is more likely to be designed and which isn't? and most importantly, can you explain how you know this?

No it isn't proof that a choice can me made. You've not even shown that a state of timelessness is possible that is just your hypothetical. Neither have you shown that a person can actually be in such a state. Or have you encountered someone chilling in this state of timelessness?

If you agree that time started at the big bang, then you would agree that a state of timelessness is possible. . .unless of course you don't, then you'll have to hold that the universe is eternal.
Secondly I don't define a person based on the existence material body however the prescence of a person can be identified by the presence of a will/ability to make choices.

An irrelevant point. 10years ago, I had a body. Today, I still have a body but does this God have a body today?

As I said, a person is not defined by the presence of a body. That's the point you missed.

But the label "thehomer" already applies to an actual person and not a metaphor while the labels "God" and "Grim Reaper" apply to metaphors. Labeling a metaphor doesn't turn it into a person. That is the point I was making.

Same way the "God" refers to a specific person. Labeling God a metaphor doesn't make him one.
It is amusing how in order for you to make an argument, you desperately seek first to misrepresent what you are arguing against.

frosbel: don't flatter yourself and pretend that I have not responded to this question.

Check the dictionary for the meaning of those words , I am sure you know how to use one .

Please where exactly did you answer my question? Point me to it

Logicboy03: You do realise that at some companies, they negotiate pay....and they found out that women are less likely to negotiate.....

But they have been given equal opportunity to negotiate. Is it the fault of the employer if the woman does not negotiate properly?

Besides this argument actually backfires against you because if it is true that women are accepting less pay for the same work, then it should follow that employers will routinely hire more women in so that they can save costs.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/equal-pay/career
On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed his very first piece of legislation: the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. The law, named after a woman who discovered her employer was paying her less than men doing the same job, makes it easier for Mrs. Ledbetter and others like her to effectively challenge unequal pay.

I won't argue against this case but I'll call it an outlier just like this one here.

However I'll agree that unlawful discrimination against either sex based on gender is wrong. I still maintain support for equality in opportunity against equality in privilege

Logicboy03: Lol.....Stalin was a murderer..cold blooded....

.....and an atheist who was very effective in attacking religion in his country

frosbel: which is why the trinity is a non-starter.

My dear frosbel, you are yet to answer my question:

....Where do you draw the line between worship and obeisance? What is the difference?
Once you tell me, we will check to see if Jesus was worshiped or paid obeisance to.


It is still waiting there for you whenever you choose to answer it.

[quote author=inspiredbyGOD:.]really? What does the word "god" mean?[/quote]it means deity. How does that relate to "God is just a title"

Am I not? But wait, is a belief in the trinity a prerequisite for salvation?

No you aren't. A knowledge of Trinity is not necessarily a prerequisite for salvation, however a good understanding of the nature of God is important for one to grasp the significance of his/her salvation

Logicboy03: Nonsense....what the feminists are asking is for equal pay for equal hours. You made up that false allegation.

Women are paid less for the same job/hours put in by men.....

Interesting. Can you give a few examples of establishments where workers working at the same level are paid differently not based on their productivity but based on their gender.

[quote author=*Kails*]am i seeing things?



it's worse than I thought!
logicboy na wa for u o [/quote]Apparently logicboy is the new defender of Stalin's legacy. The great hero who fought for his freedom to mock other people for their religious beliefs.

Logicboy03: Sorry, I had to laugh for 2 minutes because of the bold....yes, it is true; we no longer have meaningful debates...our debates used to enter 5 pages and were the reading diets of the religion section...
===========================================


So, on topic- what do you honestly mean by

1) "they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism."
Dawkins and co. have stated that there is no evidence for god....they have explained the world without God- evolution, big bang etc

2) "The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery."
Dawkins and co, have explained the failures of religion. Hitchens murdered the catholic church on its homophobia...Dawkins talked about the heavy habdedness of the old testament God.



By the way, dont you think that it is a bit fallacious to claim that new atheism is the actions of the most popular new atheists?

Allow me to take some time concerning my response to this.

bukatyne: With regards to the equal wage stuff,

Are they fighting that men and women doing the same jobs, putting in the same hours get equal wage?

That's the million dollar question.

I am yet to see a feminist present consistent evidence of men and women working at the same level in the same establishment yet the woman earns less.

bukatyne: In light of your explanation, the bolded part above is not correct. It should be you believe in equal opportunities and not giving one gender special consideration over another in certain aspects.

Apologies if I wasn't clear enough. What I was pointing at is how feminists pattern their slogans towards privileges rather than effort. e.g. "the gender wage gap" ignores the fact that there is also a "gender work hours gap" and a "gender dangerous work gap"

Logicboy03: And you honestly think that women in feminist organisations are asking for these things eg that women who join the army want easier training?

Yes that is precisely what they are asking for. Perhaps not particularly military training but I'll give the most common complaint of femininsts which is: "men earn on average more than women"

they conveniently forget that men work on average longer than women, men also work on average in more dangerous jobs than women. When you have considered those, you will see that it is only fair for men to earn on average more than women.

By the way, it is not as if the opportunity to work longer hours in more dangerous jobs is not open to women.

Logicboy03: Guy, I want to have a clean discussion like the ones you have with the homer. Or do you prefer me in my debunking mode?

Take this serioulsy, please.


State your views on "new atheism"

Lol, someone is jealous about my relationship with thehomer.

This is me taking it seriously. New atheism is the atheism of Dawkins and co. and basically the problem is that they never make any argument for why atheism is true instead of theism. Rather the movement is characterized by one-liners in mockery of religion and theism.

The claim that they want to criticize religion rationally is always destroyed by the fact that their favourite weapon of choice is irrational mockery.

^^^
My point exactly. Happy trolling sir

Logicboy03:

Equal opportunities but not equal priviledges....does that even make sense? Guy stop being ambiguous.explain

Very simple:
For example I believe women should be given equal opportunity to contest for senatorial seats. I don't believe women should be given the privilege of having 50% of the seats because we want to keep the house "gender balanced".

2. I believe women should be given the equal opportunity to work hard and reach the top of their careers just like the men, I don't believe we should simply promote more women just because we want to have equal number of male to female CEOs.

3. I believe women who wish to join the military must be put through the same brutal training as the men. The training load should not be reduced for women just because we want to have a gender balanced army (that's if being a soldier is even a privilege)

4. I believe if a woman wants anything, she should be given the equal opportunity to fight for it just like the men not come out and demand that the reward be shared equally because "the men have it better"


Do you get my point now?

Logicboy03: I find it very interesting that Anony didnt put his own comment before my comment;

1) After claiming that I had some anti-religious bias and also mixing points in that thread), I felt it very necessary to tell you that you are foolish.

First of all having a bias is not necessarily a bad thing It is not an insult to say that I have a bias against atheism or islam for instance. Interestingly you conceded to actually having an anti-religious bias on that same thread.

You have just shown that what you consider trolling is any comment that you don't like.

[quote author=outc*st]I will save the points you raised above for later but now tell me how that is different from what you do when you say Anonyism?[/quote]good question

Logicboy03: Please can you define "new atheism" and tell us why you are so negative about it or your views about it.


Thanks


(Anyone that has something to say on "new atheism" can join )

New Atheism is the name given to the ideas promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have pretended to advocate the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."

The term is commonly associated with individuals such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens (together called "the Four Horsemen of New Atheism" in a taped 2007 discussion they held on their criticisms of religion, a name that has stuck)

It should be noted that the four horsemen have not been known to propose a single argument in favour of atheism. This puts a big question mark on their claim to criticize religion using rational arguments.

fellis: I want to have an idea of what the general trend among Nigerians is on the issue of whether women and men are equal.
Your opinions on the matter will be appreciated.

I feel women and men are equal. By which I mean they should be given equal opportunities but not equal privileges by reason of their gender.

What do you think fellis?

Logicboy03: lol....you learnt about trolling on nairaland that is why you made this erroneus statement

Trolling can take many forms

Logicboy03: Trolling on the internet is simply pissing someone off with irrelevant and annoying posts.


You learnt about trolling on nairaland. Just keep quiet

Like when you insult people like this:

Vedaxcool, you are as silly as this post^^^.

Talk about strawmen!!

Wetin concern atheism and America's invasion of iraq and cut-throat capitalism?

Where did vedaxcool insult you prior to this attack

Or this:

Logicboy03: [b]You are very foolish....[/b]

Let's assume that the context didnt exist and all you had was the picture. Would it make any difference to my allusion towards christian deities?

Seriously, troll harder

Where did I insult you prior to this. Funny you even accused me of trolling there.


Apparently it seems trolling is defined as any comment logicboy does not like.

Logicboy03: I am seriously pissed off......when Jesoul was closing my threads, no one asked Jesoul for evidence!


Striklymi aka outcast has been shouting "Olodo" on this very thread here and in other threads constantly. Theevidence is abundant.

Even a thread was opened on his new behaviour in the past weeks.

Abeg....hypocrites shut up and go home.


let strikly aka outcast enjoy his butthurt

Surely you know that there is a difference between trolling and calling someone olodo

manmustwac: Outcast was banned for being a continuos troll

evidence please

Logicboy03: Even more Anonyism......point out where I went to troll thread with a single abuse. (eg like how striklymi goes to a thread and puts in only one word "olodo"

Uyi Iredia: See me see wahala. I reported logicboy to manmustwac for calling me a f**ktard and a creatard but it seemed rule 2 wasn't existing anymore. May I suggest the motion that rule 2 be amended. All in agreement say Yes.

@logicboy, defend yourself

thehomer: He already accepted that as a given. Read through the presented quote.

How are they atrocities of Atheism and not maybe just totalitarianism? Or do you know the book they referred to that recommended the atrocities?

In the same way he accepted it as a given that atheism has it's own atrocities

thehomer: How exactly do you know this? Note that for it to be factual rather than hypothetical, the difference should be physical.

Again, how do you know? Again, to be factual, the difference in the laws should be physical rather than hypothetical.

Pardon me but this is quite a logically incoherent demand. You are asking me how do I know that something could be different, and yet you are demanding that I provide evidence to prove that it couldn't possibly be different in order for you to believe that it could be different. You might as well ask me to provide for you evidence that I am actually in Tokyo, New York and Istanbul right now as proof that it is possible for me to be in any of those places right now.

I hope you do realize that from the moment one uses the phrase "could be", we are now firmly in the realm of the hypothetical.

Let us look at you consider factual again:

....Note that for it to be factual rather than hypothetical, the difference should be physical.

This particular phrase is not true. For example, 2+2=4 is a true factual statement. but the statement is not physical. . .unless of course you mean something else when you talk about "physical". For which I'll ask you to explain what you mean by "physical" in this sense.

Begin from something or from nothing?

That's the point I'm making. From nothing, nothing comes.

I don't think so. The sun began to exist and act in a specific manner. It happened without some instrument.

Specific physical laws are the instrument used in bringing the sun into existence

This looks like word-salad. What is "specific complexity"? How can a person make a choice without time?

Specific complexity: this describes a thing as having many interconnected parts all working in harmony according to a definite pattern.
How can a person make a choice without time? The fact that a state of time and a state of timelessness are possible is proof that a choice can be made between the two states. All that is necessary for choice is an alternative.

How can it be a person yet have no body and work without time? It is either special pleading on what it means to be a person since persons as we know it have bodies and work in time or a metaphor which is just a construct of language.

A person is not defined by his material body. This is evident in the fact that you are regarded as the same person from 10 years ago even though you currently exist in a different body than the one you had 10 years ago.

Sure one can do that. The only difference is that the label "God" now becomes "Grim Reaper". It would still remain a metaphor.

Well in that case, one can also change the label "thehomer" to "Grim Reaper" as a metaphor for the words in this forum and the voice I heard on the phone. The point is that once you divorce words from their meanings, you can end up with anything. When you are ready for serious discussion rather than meaningless straws, let me know.

thehomer: My point is that accusing atheists of doing this is banal.


And for some reason, you and he don't seem to understand that he didn't show how atheism would actually lead to those atrocities. But, using religious texts, it is pretty easy to justify them.

Neither did he show how religion leads one to atrocities. Yet we have the atheist states of Soviet Russia and Communist China as evidence of the atrocities of Atheism. From an atheistic/materialist worldview, it is pretty easy to justify mass murder.

Deep Sight: Indeed.

Problem though, is criminalizing it. I should not be jailed for saying that I hate women, gays, or whites. Neither should I be jailed for saying I hate Jesus or Mohammed.

In a way, I agree with you. As long as you are not carrying out physical attacks on those you hate.

Isn't it an interesting world we live in?

[size=14pt]Government condemns hate speech based on race, gender and sexual preference
Media: Government is promoting freedom and equality.

Government condemns hate speech against religion
Media: Government is against freedom and equality![/size]



WHY THE DOUBLE STANDARD?



By the way it is interesting that your topic starts with "Stalin rolls in his grave...." Surely you are not advocating Stalin's legacy are you?

Logicboy03: Anony, I am going to open a thread to discuss new atheism...pls join

ok

thehomer: What you mean by the laws being brought about by the creator's choice.

The fact that natural laws could easily exist differently,
the fact that the universe they describe began to exist.
The fact that the universe could equally operate by different laws.
The fact that for something to begin to exist and act in a specific manner, it is either an impersonal thing brought it to be in which case such a thing will have to be even more highly specified by something else leading us to an infinite regress of specified instruments.
Or we can take the more logical position that specific complexity points to intelligence and with that the ability to specify which leads us to the ability of choice without which specification is impossible.
And finally we a brought face to face with a personal creator of the laws that define the universe.

I showed you how your God is like the Grim Reaper. After all, the Grim Reaper too could have created the universe only to kill it.

Lol, but i just explained to you how God is not like the Grim Reaper. Unless you want to redefine the Grim Reaper as the creator of the Cosmos who put natural laws in place.

thehomer: You do realize that a Muslim can do this to a Christian.

Doesn't change the fact that an atheist can do it to a Hindu. What's your point?

Do atheists not speak about such issues? Besides, if Chomsky is so interested in doing those things, then he's welcome to do them. Atheists don't have to do something just because Chomsky wants it. I don't go around telling you Muslims to focus your concerns on the killing of poor Africans etc.

As usual, you don't understand what is being presented.

On the contrary, I think it is you who misses the point. Chomsky accuses atheists for condemning other beliefs for certain atrocities while their belief system is equally guilty of it's own atrocities.

.... In brief, to be minimally serious the "new atheism" should begin by looking in the mirror.

Logicboy03: I tire for this guy called Vedaxcool


I dont know if he just likes being off point and nonsensical

Actually I don't think he is too far off this time

thehomer: There's no point doing that if that isn't what you meant. So what did you mean?

Exactly what I said. What part of it did you not understand.

I just showed you how to do your work and you're still complaining.

I don't know what it is you think you showed me or how it relates to the truth or falsity of the claim of atheism that God does not exist.