Purist:
I see you haven't changed a bit. You didn't even say anything differently.

I see you have changed quite a lot and now say everything differently.

By your own admission, you only do good because of a belief that you have been redeemed vicariously. Otherwise you have no reason to do good....

Yes I do good because I have been redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ who took my punishment on my behalf and hence justifies me.

Why do you do good? What is your reason?

.....for then you would feel guilty for failing to return the 'love' of this supposed redeemer.

Here you introduce your strawman. Where I spoke of gratitude, you speak of guilt.

...And why should you feel any guilt in the first place, except for the fact that the penalty for being unable to 'love the one who first loved you' is an eternal vacation in hell.

Continuing with your strawman, you add to it a demonstration of your ignorance of the fact that hell is the deserved punishment for those who do evil.
It is only natural to be grateful to the one who sacrificed Himself as propitiation for my sin - so that I don't go to hell which I deserve for the evil I've done - and to do good in honour of Him.

"He loved me first so I must love him back, or else I'm doomed" ...sounds like a very unhealthy relationship if you ask me.

Wrong. The correct order is: "I was doomed but He loved me and saved me from damnation. Therefore I can't help but to love Him back"

Apatheist: @MrAnony1:

So your morality is born out of fear-- and greed?
So you are good only because you fear punishment after death?
Your morality is just eye service.

No that is not what I said and you still haven't suggested any meaningful reason why we ought to live morally.

I hope you never become atheist.

Lolololol, yeah I hope so too.

Here you go:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_rationalism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/practical-reason/
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/23849-rationality-and-moral-theory-how-intimacy-generates-reasons/
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1908675179?pc_redir=1408583053&robot_redir=1
http://objectivism101.com/Lectures/Lecture31.shtml
www.holisticeducator.com/rationalethics.htm

I am not impressed by link bombing. Feel free to make an argument in your own words when you are ready so we know that you know what you are talking about.

GeneralShepherd: I am sure no one reading this post lived in King Jaja of Opobo's era,nor did anyone of us reading this hear a live speech from Lord Lugard. The truth of the matter is we have no memory of our consciousness when these events happened.

So is this what will happen when we die? We fade into oblivion? Into nothingness? Like we were never here.

It is easy to deal with idea of not existing during the world war,or holocaust or any event before our date of birth,but how does one deal with the idea of fading away?

Is it remotely possible that our consciousness might survijavascript:void(0);ve our earthly bodies when we die? Is a belief in an afterlife just a mere fantasy?


Cc mranony1 thebigurban2 obi1kenobi striktlymi manmustwac Martian muskeeto

You seem to lean towards the belief that it is more likely the case that there is no such thing as an afterlife because you are not conscious of any events that happened before you were born (let's refer to this as a "pre-life" ).

1. I hope you do realize that it doesn't follow that if you don't have a pre-life, you won't have an afterlife. (If you don't realize this, please take some time to explain to me why you think it follows).

2. Now that said, your question leaves us with two possibilities:

a. An afterlife exists
b. An afterlife does not exist.

3. I will argue that:

a) If an afterlife does not exist then man really has no actual moral obligations i.e It is not reasonable to act morally

b) If an afterlife exists and it's outcome depends on the way the present life is lived, then there are actual moral obligations and hence it is reasonable to act morally.

4). Expanding upon the above....

a. If there is no afterlife, then there are no consequences for the sort of life you choose to live i.e. whether you spend your life taking pleasure in smashing the skulls of innocent babies or whether you spend your life taking pleasure in caring for the helpless little ones, in the end you will just die and rot forget everything and eventually be forgotten. There is no way we can objectively say that one pleasure is better than the other. Therefore there is no reason why one needs to act morally.

b. If on the other hand, there is an afterlife and our present life determines it's outcome, then there is an objective way in which we ought to live this present life and hence there is a reason to act morally.

5). Now I must point out that the above does not prove that there is or isn't an afterlife however it shows that the absence of an afterlife is not consistent with the presence of moral values. So if you believe that there are moral duties that we ought to adhere to, then an afterlife would be consistent with such a belief.

If on the other hand you don't believe in an afterlife, then I struggle to see how you can make a case for why we ought to live morally especially if we can derive pleasure from doing evil deeds. (If you think the two are rationally compatible then you may need to explain to me how so)

jayriginal:
Bump for the records. OP claimed to have been an atheist once.

Yes, the OP was once an atheist. Then he got wise.

Beware of those who only do good because of the fear of hell!

If you are referring to the OP here, then you couldn't be more wrong because he(the OP) does not do good because he is afraid of hell rather he does good because he loves the One who loved him first enough to die for him while he was yet a sinner. The OP submissively follows the leading of this One.

The person you need to fear is the person who used to do good because he was afraid of hell but now doesn't fear hell anymore. Such a person no longer has any reason to do good and every reason to do evil.

mazaje:
Firstly, it is clearly stated on the website that it is being owned by him. People work for him and have interacted with him, all have attested to him being the owner and creator of nairaland. . .

1. How exactly does a name written on something prove that it was created? There is no name written on the Egyptian pyramids does it mean that they were uncreated? The name of the Greek goddess Athena is written on her temple at the acropolis in Athens, does this mean that she created it?

2. How exactly does people claiming to work for and interact with Seun prove that Seun created Nairaland. A lot of people claim to work for interact with Allah, does this mean that Allah created the universe?

Chaos subject to order?. .. where did i say that?. . .i said both the order and the chaos all follow physical laws. . .By the way the physical always do not all apply in all parts of the universe. . .

It is now clear that you don't know what you are talking about. What did you think you were saying when you said that chaos follows physical laws? Or are you suggesting that something following a specific set of laws is not disorderly?

it means a lot, if i don't know how something functions here, i can contact Seun and he can explain it to me. . .You can't do that with god. . .You can't contact god and have him explain anything to you. . .

How exactly does Seun explaining how Nairaland works prove that he or anyone created Nairaland. When your mechanic explains to you how your car works, does it prove that he created your car?

Seun has already claimed he is the owner of nairaland and his signature is found all over the website, he wants people to know he owns the website and has provided some evidence in form of his signature and copyright. . . that is enough evidence for me. . .God has provided no evidence at all to show that he created the universe, god's signature or name is not written in any part of the universe. . .

If someone to claims ownership and writes his name on something is enough evidence for you to believe that he/she created the thing, then you must also believe that Allah created the universe because he tends to write his name with the clouds and sand every now and again.

Why the double standard?

Nope, you haven't. . .The questions remain valid, claiming god means nothing. . You should also be able to use god to explain how things fuction. ..saying god created alone is nothing but an assumption and a default position for i don't know. . .

As I said to you, the questions you are asking have nothing to do with the answers you are seeking. If you want us to have a fruitful discussion, you need to start asking valid questions

mazaje:
There is no double standard there. . .Seun made a claim and he has evidence to back up his claim. . .In fact he already had a handle here and can be contacted directly. Every body here knows that nairaland was created and is owned by Seun because of the many evidence that he has provided to support his claims.

Lol really? Please provide some of these "many evidence"

By the way, having a handle here and the ability to be contacted directly does not prove that you or me or Seun or anyone else created nairaland. Try again.

Chaos is also part of the physical laws. . .Explosions are chaotic(of which there are countless amounts of them going on in the universe) but they are also obey the physical laws that govern the universe. . . .Both the orderliness and chaos that happen in equal amounts in the universe all obey the physical laws. . .The laws governing the universe support orderliness and chaos. .

Lol, so you believe that chaos can be subject to order. I see

If you want me to use Seun to explain to you where there is now a shared post button along side the mention button, like button or how images can be uploaded by copying their urls, Seun will be glad to explain all to me and i will explain it to you.

And how do you know that Seun did not ask someone else to explain to him before he explained to you. For all I know, you might even be the creator of Nairaland since you are the one explaining Nairaland to me.

The point here is that having knowledge of how/why something works does not necessarily prove that you created it, it only proves that you know. Therefore this is an invalid point.

P/s: I also didn't fail to notice that you already assumed that it was Seun who is the creator and therefore the one you need to ask questions before even proceeding to find out anything, why didn't you ask logicboy or frosbel or any of the 1 million+ people on Nairaland?
It is so funny that you can't see that you are already assuming that Seun is the answer to the question before even trying to reason so as to find out if Nairaland has a creator or not. This is the fallacy known as petito principe a.k.a. begging the question.

You on the other hand can never use god alone to explain to me why the DNA of some organisms mutate or why gaseous planets like Jupiter exist with 12 moons. . .

I think I have said enough by now for you to recognize that the questions you are asking have nothing to do with the answers you are seeking.

mazaje:
How is it begging the question?. . .Seun has already made the claim. . .His trade mark is already on Nairaland. . .

He has answered already. . .

So basically it is true because Seun claimed it is true. I see

If you can't see your double standard by now, then I really can't help you

I really don't know what to make of this, all i said was that the universe has equal amount of order and chaos. . .I don't know where you got the universe works is not orderly part. . .

I'll repeat myself: You subscribe to a naturalist worldview and you reject anything which you believe goes contrary to the laws of physics, if half of the universe is chaotic as you claim, then you must hold that half of it obeys physical laws while the other half defies physical laws hence you would be contradicting your worldview by accepting some things that do not obey physical laws.

Unless you want to argue that the chaos in the universe works according to physical laws. Then I must ask you to explain exactly how it is chaotic if it functions according to the order dictated by physical laws?

LOL!. . . .What am saying is that god can not be used to explain anything properly and objectively, god is nothing more than an assumption. . .People have used god to try to explain creation. . .The bible, koran, yoruba, greek, mayan, hindu etc religious scriptures all tried to use god to explain how the universe came about but failed. . .We see the sun and we assume it's god that created it, we see animals and plants then we assume that it was god that created them. . .We see the stars and assume its god. . .But the thing is you can not use god to explain how these things operate, you can only use god to make wild assumptions about things you do not know, if god created them, then god should also be used to explain how they operate. . .You can claim and assume that god created all living organism but you can not use god to explain specific details about the organism, you can not for example use god to explain to me why the DNA of some organisms mutate. . .You can only use god to assume that he created the stars but you can not use god to explain why super novas occur. ..God is just an assumption and the default position for "I don't know " for the theist, at lest that is what you guys have been able to show so far. . . .You want me to just accept that god created everything and set them in place( an assumption), but you don't want me to ask you about the specific mechanism he used to put those things in place if indeed he created them. . .

Except that you have not used Seun to explain anything. You have merely claimed that he said he did it. How exactly are you different from the person who claims that God said that He did it?

It is really funny to see how oblivious you are to the fact that you are employing a double standard.

finofaya:
I agree that it could be interpreted as the work of a designer but I don't know that it is evidence for a designer. Calling it 'evidence' for a designer suggests that the only explanation for it is a designer, and that is not the case.

To say that something is evidence of another doesn't necessarily amount to it being "the only explanation", however it means that it is the best explanation. What do I mean by this?

Here is what I mean; take for instance that i saw dog footprints on the sand. The footprints are evidence for the presence of a dog. This is the most rational explanation. A person may want to argue otherwise - he may might say for instance that it is a result of wind blowing the sand and by chance the grains of sand ended up arranged as dog footprints - but he will then have to bear a much greater burden of proof.

The same applies when we observe a specific complex yet intelligible functioning order such as is found in a piece of machinery or written language or the functioning of the universe, the most rationally consistent explanation is that it is a design. To argue that it is otherwise means that you will bear a greater burden of proof

You are welcome to put forward other possible explanations for specific and intelligible functioning order apart from design and why these explanations deserve more merit.

You're just not getting it. You said my position amounts to saying "if all men are blind, light does not exist". I clarified by saying "if all men are blind, light would exist, but not sight".

In your example, blind refers to consciousness, right? And light refers to order. This is wrong and that's why I clarified. Light refers to the series of events operating independently of any observer, and sight refers to the sense we make of the series, or in other words, order.

Not quite. Please try to understand the analogy. "Light" refers to order, "sight" refers to consciousness, "blindness"(lack of sight) refers to a lack of consciousness.
I don't think I got you wrong at all. You are of the opinion that it is our consciousness that makes sense of a series of events therefore imposes order upon it. I am saying that you are wrong, and that the true case is that your consciousness observes the order in a series of events and that this order exists independently from your consciousness.

This can be demonstrated by how your mind can tell the difference between an orderly series of events and a disorderly one. In fact your mind can understand things on a scale of less to more orderly/chaotic. If your consciousness was imposing this order, then you wouldn't be able to tell that anything was more chaotic than another because your consciousness would make all things orderly. Since we know of things that are more disorderly than others, then we must hold that your consciousness is observing order and not imposing it.

You are always welcome to disagree with the above by either denying that you observe things that are more chaotic/ordered than others or you can explain why your consciousness is so discriminatory such that it imposes more order on some things and less on others.

Bear in mind that for you to even be conscious, certain constituent parts need to work according to a very specific functioning order. If as you hold, consciousness makes order, then you will need to explain why the order that functions for your consciousness to work works independent from your consciousness.
If you argue that it is merely "a series of events", then you will need to explain how this series of events is any different from a "specific functioning order" since they both seem to work in exactly the same way and achieve exactly the same result i.e. your consciousness. If you fail to explain this, then we must take your "series of events" to be nothing more than a synonym for what I refer to as "order" and hence your argument will become nullified

Any world that humans find themselves in is a world that they will find orderly. This is because for any world to exist at all, there are rules that it must follow. Once it follows rules, it becomes predictable.

The fact that humans have the ability to identify chaos shows that it is not true that humans will find any world they happen to be in orderly. Secondly, for humans to even exist at all let alone be conscious of the world around them, there must be a specified functioning order existing prior to the human being that makes it possible for him to exist.
Now that said, your second statement where you hold the existence of any world depends on certain defining rules is not exactly true and is very misleading because it is possible to have an utterly chaotic world where events happen randomly. You might argue that the rule operating in such a world is that it must be chaotic and therefore it is orderly in that sense but this will be begging the question...and that's why I said that your statement is misleading.

What you call order, is something that cannot be done away with in any type of existing world. Things have to happen in turn, ie temporal order. There has to be cause and effect. (Or effect and cause). Any existing world must have these things. You cannot conceive of a world without such properties. Even God cannot do without temporal order. I think it is presumptuous to now turn around and say that it is because of God that we have what we call order.

Again, you are mistaken here. The fact that things happen in turn does not necessarily equate to order. You can have a possible world of random numbers appearing at random intervals. It will be misleading to argue that such a world is not chaotic because the numbers don't all appear at once.

There is no message in the universe. No design. These things just happen. When we can predict their behaviour, we say they are ordered.

This is like saying that "there is no order in an automobile, no design, the interaction of it's constituent parts just happen and when we can predict their behaviour, we say they are ordered". If you don't hold the above statement to be true for a car, why would you deny the same conclusion for a universe which has a far more complex interaction of it's constituent parts?

The question who designed the designer has to be asked because the argument from design is based on the assumption that there can be no design without a designer. If this is true, then a designer must be designed itself, and we would like to know who did it, otherwise we would not have bothered asking in the first place how we got here. if the designer could come from nothing, then why not us?

Point of correction, no argument for design assumes that the designer is necessarily a design. We know that we humans didn't come from nothing because we are temporal beings.

Who designed nairaland is not a philosophical question. It is not in the same calibre as the question 'why anything?', for which the answer 'God did it' is insufficient.

I think this is where you try to evade the point. The question before us is not "why anything?". The question before us is "does the universe have a designer?" Therefore "does nairaland have a designer?" is very analogous to it since in both questions we explore a design/designer relationship.
Note that the question is not "who designed nairaland?" nor is it "who designed the universe?" because both already assume that the nairaland and the universe are designed. Though I believe it to be true, I do not want to make that assumption, rather I want us to explore if the universe shows evidence of design by comparing it to other things that you believe show evidence of design.

finofaya: Whatever form it takes, it is still orderliness. Why is God's own taken for granted?

This is a good question but before I answer it, I must first clarify: Do you at least grant that specific and intelligible functioning order is evidence of design?

Outside the perception of the conscious mind, what exists is merely a series of events.

Figuring out how this series operates leads us to say it is ordered. That it is ordered means we can predict it.

Without us, the series exists but it is merely a series of events.

If the series of events continued to happen in the same way regardless of whether you are conscious of it or not, then I don't see how it's order depends on your consciousness.

If you must hold that order depends on what you can understand, then you must necessarily hold that things you don't understand (e.g. Mandarin Chinese, Latin, neurology, aeronautic engineering or any subject you don't understand) must necessarily be chaotic. This is an odd position to hold.

And if all men were blind, light would exist, but sight would not exist.

I'm afraid that you've really said nothing here. "If all were blind, sight would not exist", "if all were deaf, hearing will not exist" if all did not eat meat, eating meat won't exist" e.t.c. these sort of statements actually lead us to nowhere.

You know, this is just another variant of the argument from design. You still have to ask who designed the designer.

How does knowing who designed the designer prove or disprove the designer in question? i.e: You believe that Seun is the creator of Nairaland.com. Did you need to know who designed Seun in order to come to this conclusion?

The question of "who designed the designer" is an irrelevant question employed to draw one away from the contested point into infinite regress. It is usually an indication that the person asking the question has no real intention of discussing the issue at hand.

Weah96:

Of course. Who else should be responsible for your behavior?

I see.

mazaje:
I can as Seun and he will tell me when he created nairaland and launched it, he will also tell me why he used the programming language he used, the reasons could range from ease, availability etc. . .Seun can answer all those questions if I ask him. . .God can not tell you the age of the universe or why he used nuclear fusion to power the sun. . .

It does, we know python and Suen has already told us the age of nairaland. . .Nairaland already has Suen's label and trade mark on it and as such no body can claim owener ship of nairaland apart from Seun. . .The universe has no label or trade mark of any god any where, you are just jumping into conclusion. . .

Does the universe behave intelligibly like nairaland?. . how so?. . .Nairaland has a very orderly way in which things flow, every thing leads to another thing which ultimately leads to interaction between the users, the universe does not have such order. . .Some laws that hold some parts of the universe do not even apply in others, there seem to be order but there also seem to be chaos in equal magnitude . . .

You miss the point totally (even though I highlighted it in bold):

1. Asking Seun when he created Nairaland already assumes that Nairaland has a creator called Seun even before engaging with the data before you. This is begging the question.

2. Whether Seun chooses to answer or not tells us absolutely nothing about whether he is the creator of Nairaland. I hope you are not suggesting that if Seun decides not to answer your question then it proves that he didn't create nairaland.

3. Asking for the sort of trademark that is on Nairaland to be on the universe simply shows me that you are not prepared to discuss rationally.

4. You claim that how the universe works is not orderly. This seems weird to me because I know that you subscribe to a naturalist worldview and you reject anything which you believe goes contrary to the laws of physics, if the universe is chaotic as you claim, then you must hold that at least certain parts of it defy physical laws hence you would be contradicting your worldview.

So as I said, The questions you have asked do not in anyway lead us to the answers that you seek. If you think that knowing the answer to the age of Nairaland and the programming language of Nairaland proves that one is a creator, then you must also hold that if you know the age of the earth and that the sun is powered by nuclear fusion then you must have created the universe. How you can't see that your error in your questions beats me.

mazaje: Sorry forgot to mention it earlier MrAnony1, its really nice to have you back. . .

Thanks, actually I wasn't gone. Just don't have as much free time as I used to.

finofaya: This creator then, is he also orderly and intelligible?

Yes but not necessarily in the same way that his creation is orderly.

And don't you think that we label something as orderly only because we have identified how it works? I'm not sure that anything is objectively orderly. They just happen and we say they are orderly when we understand how they happen.

Even the term chaos (in the scientific sense) simply refers to extremely unpredictable outcomes. Unpredictable to us, that is.

It is humans that are required for order, since it exists in our head. Any kind of world we find ourselves in, we will find it orderly.

I appreciate this argument but I think you are wrong. It is not because we identify how something works that makes it orderly, The said thing would have been orderly even before we understood it. For instance, the fact that I don't understand the order in which Chinese symbols are written doesn't make Chinese writings disorderly. My point is that order is independent of our understanding.

Now I agree with you that a conscious mind is required to perceive order but I must point out that this doesn't mean that order cannot exist outside the perception of a conscious mind.

Your argument is like saying that if all men were blind then light necessarily wouldn't exist. That's simply untrue.

Weah96: Your meat ship, your responsibility. You're responsible for the behavior of your organic vehicle.

Earlier, you said that our behavior is driven by certain chemical interactions. Now it seems to me that you are saying that we are responsible for the things that drive us and control our actions. Is that what you are saying?

mazaje:

All you are saying is god is your default position for "I don't know". . .

Actually that is not what I am saying at all.

If I ask you specific questions about the earth and the universe and tell you to use god and give me the answers you wouldn't. Example, if i tell you to use god alone and tell me the age of the earth or the universe you wouldn't be able to do that or use god alone as an explanation for why nuclear fusion is what is powering our sun and other stars?. . .Why nuclear fusion and not something else?. . .You just want me to believe that god created everything but you won't want to tell me how he created, what he used in creating and when he created. . .doesn't that sound off the mark to you?. . . `

Here you are asking the wrong questions i.e. questions that have nothing to do with the answers you seek.

You believe Seun is the creator of Nairaland. Yet if I asked you to use Seun alone to give me answers to specific questions you wouldn't. Example, use Seun alone to tell me the age of Nairaland.com. Or why Nairaland is written with python (or whatever programming language it is written in) and not another programming language? You just want me to believe that Seun created everything but you won't tell how or what he used in creating....doesn't that sound of the mark to you?

You see the problem with your questions? I am sure that you'll agree that the fact that Nairaland is 9 years old or that it is written in python tells us nothing about whether Nairaland has a creator or not. What tells us that Nairaland has a creator is the fact that it works according to a specific order such that operating in it is intelligible. Same applies to the universe.

The part in bold is exactly what I mean by the only logically consistent way to explain the universe is that it has a creator. Once you deny this fact, then you have no way to explain the presence of physical bodies or the order by which they function.

Weah96:

Our behavior is driven by chemIcal reactions at the cellular level. That's both physical and scientific. You're willing to present the cell as an example of God's magnificence, and ignore Boko Haram and ISIS in the process. Are we not a collection of atoms and cells?

Just to get you right, are you saying that people are not morally responsible for any of their actions rather it is all just physical interactions between physical bodies?

TheBigUrban2:
1) Science is logically consistent without God. Scientific facts are explainable without God. Science is Godless. End of story. You are wrong

I see that you have no intention of having a discussion.

2) In trying to be smart, you debunked yourself. You employed a double negative, hence, your question is nonsensical

You have just displayed an ignorance of an understanding of double negatives.

mazaje:

How do you use god to logically explain gravity or the principle of flotation?. . .How do you use god to explain how the sun is powered by nuclear fusion?. . .

Point of correction: I am not "using God to explain the said phenomena". I am saying that God is the explanation of the phenomena. The existence of specific principles that define the behavior of the physical bodies in the universe necessarily leads us to the existence of a creator that defines these principles. If atheism were true, i.e. "there is no God" then we don't have a way of explaining the existence of the principles that put the universe in order.

Weah96:

I disagree. The universe includes ISIS, Boko Haram, Ebola, the animals on the Serengeti, and stars that are constantly collapsing. We live in a relatively stable section of the universe, but even earth is bombarded by chaos. Our meat vessel in which we move around begins deteriorating the moment we're born. The only thing separating us from corpses is father Time.

Don't just look at the caterpillar which turns into a beautiful butterfly, but consider also the birds that rip them apart for calories.

This is a strawman of my position once again. When I spoke about order there, I wasn't referring to order in a moral sense rather I was speaking about order in a purely physical/"scientific" sense. The order of the physical elements of the universe is a different category from the order of it's moral beings.

TheBigUrban2:


Nice to see you again, Anony

1) There are millions of things that are true without God. The whole arena of Science is without God or anything supernatural

2) Atheism is not a belief

Hi BigUrban, good to see you.

1) Actually, you've just made a strawman of what I said right there. I didn't say that "things aren't true without God", rather I said that it is impossible to have logically consistent explanations for truth without God.

To explain what I mean with regards to science; I don't have to invoke God to know that scientific knowledge is true. It is observable. However, it is impossible for me to have a logically consistent explanation of scientific truths without God.

The universe functions in an orderly way such that it is intelligible and not chaotic. Science takes it for granted that the universe is orderly and then seeks to find out how this order works. The moment you question why the universe is orderly, the best logically consistent way to explain it is by the means of a creator, ditto moral truths and philosophical truths.




2) Are you saying that atheists don't believe that God doesn't exist?

To answer the question of the thread. I became an atheist at a point in my life when I thought that belief in God ran contrary to common sense. Then I questioned my convictions and I found out that I couldn't make any consistent logical sense of anything I hold to be true without a belief in God. Therefore, I rejected atheism as a false belief.

Kay17: and you ignored all about the social construct aspect and devoted your attention to pedantry.

No it is not pedantry. It is the core of what we have been arguing about all along. You need to show that roles are imposed upon the sexes and it is not the case that they are freely choosing them. You still haven't done this and because you have failed to meet your burden of proof, your whole argument fails

what's sociological in that?!

What's sociological in what?

Good night. I'm done with you.

...Or are you?

Kay17:
Would you be alright the word "perceive" or "expectation"?? Does impose sound too forceful to you?? The WHO definition, WIki's, John Money's and the feminists have a convergent definition on Gender. Basically as a social construct, a sociological concept built around the biological sexes. What this social roles would be are not biological neither did they come from Heaven. They are from earth and a product of society. Just like one of the websites I provided said, Gender in primitive societies was;

If you decide to change the word from "imposed" to "percieve" or "expect" that's fine but bear in mind that it would destroy your idea that the rights of women are denied to them because they are women or that men are given more rights because they are men.

Let's consider these two statements.

1. Society expects men to play the role of bread winner. Notice that here the rights and duties of the bread winner are allocated to whoever is playing the role therefore if a man doesn't play the role, he won't meet this expectation and therefore will not be accorded the accompanying rights and responsibilities.

2. Society imposes upon men the role of bread winner. Notice that here the man has no other choice than to play his role as bread winner and hence he is accorded the rights and responsibilities of bread winner whether he plays the role or not.

See the difference?

Compare to this.

1. Society expects East Africans to be marathon winners. This means that Kenyans usually win marathons but if East Africans lose a marathon, they would have failed to meet the societies expectation and therefore doesn't get the benefits of being a marathon winner.

2. Society allocates the position of marathon winner to East Africans. This on the other hand means that the position and the benefits that come with it are given to the East African independent of whether he plays the role or not.

Or this....

1. The Nigerian society perceives that suya sellers are Hausa/Fulani men.
2. The Nigerian soociety imposes the role of suya seller upon Hausa/Fulani men.

Words have meanings my friend. Those two statements mean very different things, If you really can't tell the difference in our positions after all the examples I have provided then that's just too bad.

By changing the wording as you have suggested, you will be effectively agreeing with me that just because most men or women play a particular role, doesn't make the role imposed on them and hence roles played by people do not make them unequal in any real sense especially if they are free to play the said role.

You just introduced/invented the bolded, and I do not know what biological gender means. And what could you possibly mean by sociological gender?

biological gender traits are those traits by which one may characterize males and females based on their biological make-up. e.g. the presence of male or female reproductive organs in the individuals.

sociological gender traits are traits typically exhibited by the male or female genders e.g. Men generally tend to be more agressive and reckless while women generally tend to be more emotional and easily moved to tears.

Hope that has now been cleared up for you.

The whole definitions Mr Anony! What do you understand by all the definitions I have provided, which the WHO approves??

I just told you already. WHO's definition which you provided is leans feminist.

This was what you said:

Does John Money use Gender synonymously with sex? NO! Was the original word used to mean sex? NO! Mr Anony you have been unfairly deceitful.

And this is what I was responding to when I said that:

....However, in many other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it. Although this change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s...

If you want to hold that your article contradicts itself, I guess you are free to do so.

I have not been decietful in any way. I think you are still annoyed at how I exposed your dishonesty here: https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/23#25510581

This seems to me to be an attempt to hit back. It failed

TV01:

I believe I have been quite clear in that regard - it's a needless construct at best. Its use is mostly ideological in nature and used to promote dysfunction and deviancy.

But I'm always game for a laugh


The following are the 58 gender options identified by ABC News:

•Agender
•Androgyne
•Androgynous
•Bigender
•Cis
•Cisgender
•Cis Female
•Cis Male
•Cis Man
•Cis Woman
•Cisgender Female
•Cisgender Male
•Cisgender Man
•Cisgender Woman
•Female to Male
•FTM
•Gender Fluid
•Gender Nonconforming
•Gender Questioning
•Gender Variant
•Genderqueer
•Intersex
•Male to Female
•MTF
•Neither
•Neutrois
•Non-binary
•Other
•Pangender
•Trans
•Trans*
•Trans Female
•Trans* Female
•Trans Male
•Trans* Male
•Trans Man
•Trans* Man
•Trans Person
•Trans* Person
•Trans Woman
•Trans* Woman
•Transfeminine
•Transgender
•Transgender Female
•Transgender Male
•Transgender Man
•Transgender Person
•Transgender Woman
•Transmasculine
•Transsexual
•Transsexual Female
•Transsexual Male
•Transsexual Man
•Transsexual Person
•Transsexual Woman
•Two-Spirit


TV

^{plus, don't think you are off the hook re abortion. You've woefully failed to make any semblance of a case on that !}

LOLOLOLOL Na wa Oooh. Who let the loonies out of the psych ward?

Kay17:
The dictionary meaning is hardly sufficient, too general and lacks in the sociological context yet touches behavioral and [b]cultural] traits associated with a sex.

Remember that the contention is not about the traits/roles associated with the sexes rather it is whether these traits/roles are imposed upon the sexes. That's the point

This is another attempt by you to mislead. The term was employed by a sexologist John Money in an attempt to distinguish between biological sex and the social construct around biological sex. It is only natural for feminists to harp on this clarification for their purposes. So it is not a creation of feminists, rather it is an apt sociological concept.

Remember that I am not contending an attempt to distinguish between biological gender traits and sociological gender traits. I am contending against the feminist suggestion that these traits are distributed/allocated by society because that would mean that they are imposed roles rather than traits. Essentially feminists have hijacked the meaning and tilted it to suit their purposes; just like you are demonstrating here.

Obviously for the purposes of your argument, the definition is not suitable and favourable to you. Hence the witches of feminism must have poisoned the WHO.

This is just silly. Are you suggesting that the way to distinguish between the female and male genders is by such things as who gets paid less vs who pays more, or who smokes less vs who smokes more, or who is allowed to drive vs who isn't or who does more housework vs who does less? Surely you can clearly see that the so called characteristics of gender are not characteristics at all as they don't tell us anything about how to distinguish the categories it is supposed to be describing. All it does is sound off popular feminist soundbites.

Prior to 1955, the word was merely used in grammar. John Money reused it in a sociological context, and ever since then people have found the biological sex no different from the social construct. So the original meaning is still for Grammar and then after John Money's meaning.

But John Money's meaning is not the same as yours because where he makes a distinction you and other feminists go further to claim that this distinction is enforced by society such that it leads to people being treated unfairly and given less rights than they deserve. That's the point you need to prove....and you haven't yet made any attempt to back up the claim.

TV01:

Gender is a ruse. A neologism in the vein of "gay" or "homosexual". Created and/or used as part of the aim to normalise deviancy and dysfunction.

Human beings - the human binary - are male and female. Apart from a few unfortunate instances of case such as intersex, that is it. No other categorisation is required.

Gender has now morphed into ove 50 odd categories at the last count. With orientation an alphabet soup, starting from LGB, and at last count somewhere at LGBTIQRSTVW...and increasing !

Orientation, which we are told is a spectrum - including hetero, homo and bi, but not other paraphillias such as attraction to animals, babies or the prepubescent?

If your sex, gender and orientation do not align, if the way you present is at odds with the way you feel, and not dovetailed with your "attraction", which is again different from your biological functionality there is something wrong.

And whilst we do not deny people the right to "self-identify" in whatever way they choose, we are not overturning thousands of years of anthropological evidence, cultural heritage and social norms just to justify the idiosyncrasises - or downright perversions - of a disordered minority.


Yeye de smell.

Morning everyone !


TV

^{Sex = male, Gender = masculine, Orientation = striker , Functionality = normal}

Lol that's the new strategy nowadays. Destroy the meaning of a word, redefine it and then insist on that the world should respect your madness.

The LGBT folks are the ones that make me laugh. A man can wake up tomorrow and claim that he is actually a woman, calls himself "transgender" and the society celebrates him (or her) yet another man who woke up thinking that he is really a pumpkin is in the mental ward being cured of his madness.

The inconsistencies of modern ideologies are just beyond hope.

A delusion by definition is a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

Kay17:

Definition of Gender:

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

https://www.genderspectrum.org/understanding-gender

http://m.psychologytoday.com/basics/gender

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender

Now these definitions are radically different from the one you built your post on.

Or are they? Let us consider what you have put forth...

First let us remind ourselves of the dictionary definition.

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Now compare that to the definition on Wikipedia.

"Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to, and differentiating between, masculinity and femininity. Depending on the context, these characteristics may include biological sex (i.e. the state of being male, female or intersex), sex-based social structures (including gender roles and other social roles), or gender identity."

Notice that the definitions are similar i.e. traits pertaining to (NOT "allocated to" nor "imposed upon" ) masculinity and femininity.

But Wikipedia isn't done yet, it continues....

"Sexologist John Money introduced the terminological distinction between biological sex and gender as a role in 1955. Before his work, it was uncommon to use the word gender to refer to anything but grammatical categories. However, Money's meaning of the word did not become widespread until the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the concept of a distinction between biological sex and the social construct of gender....."

So basically, the meaning you are harping on about was in fact created by feminist ideology. Yet you can't see how this is circular?
Essentially you are admitting to changing the normal meaning of a word in order to conform it with your theory and then you turn around and accuse those who disagree with you of not understanding the meaning of a word which you are using differently from how it has normally been used. C'mon now, surely you can see the problem here.

Apparently feminists succeeded they even got to the WHO, as Wikipedia continues...

.....Today, the distinction is strictly followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences and documents written by the World Health Organization (WHO)....

Let us hear how the WHO defines gender shall we?

What do we mean by "sex" and "gender"?

Sometimes it is hard to understand exactly what is meant by the term "gender", and how it differs from the closely related term "sex".

"Sex" refers to the biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women.

"Gender" refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities, and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for men and women.

To put it another way:

"Male" and "female" are sex categories, while "masculine" and "feminine" are gender categories.

Aspects of sex will not vary substantially between different human societies, while aspects of gender may vary greatly.

Some examples of sex characteristics :

Women menstruate while men do not
Men have testicles while women do not
Women have developed breasts that are usually capable of lactating, while men have not
Men generally have more massive bones than women

Some examples of gender characteristics :

In the United States (and most other countries), women earn significantly less money than men for similar work
In Viet Nam, many more men than women smoke, as female smoking has not traditionally been considered appropriate
In Saudi Arabia men are allowed to drive cars while women are not
In most of the world, women do more housework than men

http://www.who.int/gender/whatisgender/en/

I didn't fail to notice that the what the WHO defines as the "characteristics of gender" read like a feminist campaign. It teaches us nothing about differentiating between masculine and feminine genders.


Continuing with Wikipedia...

....However, in many other contexts, including some areas of social sciences, gender includes sex or replaces it. Although this change in the meaning of gender can be traced to the 1980s, a small acceleration of the process in the scientific literature was observed in 1993 when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) started to use gender instead of sex. In 2011, the FDA reversed its position and began using sex as the biological classification and gender as "a person's self representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions based on the individual's gender presentation." In non-human animal research, gender is also commonly used to refer to the physiology of the animals.

In the English literature, the trichotomy between biological sex, psychological gender, and social sex role first appeared in a feminist paper on transsexualism in 1978. Some cultures have specific gender-related social roles that can be considered distinct from male and female

Clearly, we can see that outside feminist influenced contexts, gender is still very synonymous with sex and has always been so until the 1980s when the meaning was changed by the influence of feminism.

How you can't see the circularity in redefining a word and then trying to use your redefinition to prove your redefinition is truly amazing.

Kay17:
I did, by showing that society distributes the rights based on gender...

Actually you didn't show any such thing. You merely claimed that it was the case. You still haven't provided us a single right that males have that is unavailable to females in Nigeria.

But you didn't understand, because you are barely understanding what gender means.

Oh I understand what gender means quite alright, I am just not as blinded by feminist ideology as you are. (More on this later)

You are the first person in the world to deny the existence of gender

Actually this is not true. I don't deny the existence of gender I only reject your definition of it.

...and worst of all you believe I'm arguing for gender.

No I don't. I believe you are contradicting yourself mostly due to a very poor understanding of the issue you are discussing.

Worse, you don't know gender is and you denied the definition! Considering your post, we were arguing over nothing.

Actually there is no such thing as "worse than the worst of all" but that's by the way, We aren't arguing over nothing. The problem you seem to have is that you start from faulty presuppositions that taint your definition of gender and equal rights. It is these presuppositions that we don't share and this spills unto our disagreements on gender and equality.

You denied the existence of gender, what else can one say.

It is interesting that no matter how often you are asked to show these unequal rights, you never do rather you assume them to be the case and then redefine/misinterpret the definition of gender to match with your prior assumption. This is a classic case of circular reasoning

By the way, where did you get the talk that "the woman is the neck of the family from

I'll tell you once you tell me where you got the talk that "the man is the head of the family".

[size=13pt]Addendum:[/size]

For the sake of clarity, please allow me to point out exactly what the debate between two of us is.

1. I think we both agree that as a society we ought to treat males and females equally i.e. grant them equal rights
2. You start with the presupposition that females are the oppressed sex, I don't.

No.2 is why you are a feminist and I am not. All I have done throughout our discourse was to challenge your presupposition by asking you to show how exactly females are specifically disadvantaged in Nigeria. You haven't been able to do this at all.

Let us now take a look at how you define gender.

According to you, gender is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. You even go on to suggest that society allocates these roles and they are fixed and cannot be fluid.

Here is the definition of gender according to the Merriam Webster's dictionary

Gender:
a : sex; the state of being male or female e.g. the feminine gender
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex

Notice any difference?

While gender is actually defined as traits typically associated with being male or female, you have chosen to define yours as traits allocated to/imposed upon males and females with females especially getting the worse end of the stick.

This is why I have repeatedly asked you to give examples of roles that you or women in general would like to play have that have been unfairly denied to you for the specific reason that you are female. That is your burden of proof and you have repeatedly failed to meet it.

I don't deny that in our society, there are roles played more often by men than by women and vice versa. What I reject is how you interpret that to mean that the roles played are therefore imposed upon the sexes by society. This is simply not true because the reality is that men and women from time to time switch from roles typically associated with their sexes and no one punishes them for it.

I do not buy your assertion that "criticism and ostracism" are the "weapons" because people their is no such thing as a right to not be criticized. For me to take that point seriously, you will need to show that they are indeed used as weapons in the sense that they actually limit the rights of their targets. In this case, the females in particular.

Your argument is similar to saying that because black people don't typically play Ice hockey therefore they are prohibited from playing it. The logical leap is just absurd.

Because women typically don't play the role of bread winner of the family, it doesn't necessarily follow that society therefore forbids them from playing such a role. To justify your position, you will have to provide positive evidence of society punishing women for daring to provide for their families. Since so far, you have failed to back up your claim with any evidence, you leave us with no other choice than to disregard your position as contrary to reality.

To put it bluntly, the position you hold is simply false.

Seems you hadn't had enough after all....

Kay17:

Yes to i. and ii. they are together. As regards iii. it is of secondary concern, because my original purpose was to show you that there were no equal rights between the sexes in Nigeria and that Gender is to be blamed.

Except that you have not yet shown this to be true even after asking you so many times

I didn't say the bolded

You did here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

MrAnony1:
- I hold the position that men and women have equal rights under Nigerian law.

- I hold the position that certain duties and responsibilities naturally have certain rights attached to them.

- I hold the position that men and women in Nigeria are free to play whichever of the roles they choose and as a result possess the accompanying rights.

Now please tell me; Which of the above three positions are mutually incompatible?

Kay17:
The first two are incompatible together and the third is impossible because gender roles are not fluid but fixed on sex.

So yes you claimed that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex

and iv. is true because there is a difference between the ideal society perceives and reality itself. So the contradiction you saw was imaginary. Largely your creation.

Apparently I must have imagined you posting what I quoted then.

Yes the roles can be played by either sex in reality there is no controversy in that regards....

Good. Finally something we both agree upon.

how does society allocate the roles?? that is what is in contention.

I don't hold that society is "allocating" any roles. I hold that people are simply choosing to play the roles they think suits them best. You are always welcome to tell us which roles you would have loved to play that society prohibited you from playing based on your gender.

Note that since gender is anchored on the basis of sexes, it is invariably fixed. Otherwise if fluid like you agree, then the basis is something other than the sexes.

Remember that your definition of gender (which I don't agree with by the way) = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and an example of such responsibilities/duties that you gave is men as the head of the family.

So you are effectively saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes is invariably fixed i.e. men playing the role of family head is fixed. Otherwise if fluid - i.e. if females played the role of family head for instance - then the role will be based on something else other than sexes.

Since the reality is that both men and women can and do play these roles then according to your own argument - i.e. your argument that "if the roles are fluid then they are not based on the sexes" - we have to discard your definition of gender as having nothing to do with reality.

Ostracism and Criticism are the weapon.

Seriously? Is that it? You do realize that people have freedom of association and the freedom of speech. Right? I hope you are not suggesting that we force people to be friendly with people they disagree with in the name of "equality".
Bear in mind that refusing to associate with someone and actively criticizing the person's actions do not lessen the person's rights in any way. Even in this (and by the way I am not granting that society particularly ostracizes or criticizes women for being women or playing certain so called gender roles), you haven't shown an absence of equal rights between males and females.

What does society say about the man who lives under his wife's roof?

Whatever society says, does it affect the rights of such a man in any way? If it doesn't, then it is irrelevant. If it does then please show us how it does.

Remember that your task has always been to show that the Nigerian society gives men greater rights than women.

The society does not have to throw him into jail. Same with homosexuals prior to the Anti Homo legislation, homo.sexuality was not illegal yet society frowned at it and was out of sight.

Being male or female and being a homosexual or heterosexual are not at all in the same category.

pickabeau1: ,.... goodluck waiting for Godot

pickabeau1: Classic... insults...

I'm surprised she held out this long

And so she goes the way of carefreewannabe.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain my previous distinction between regular and radical feminists. . . . .but alas I am a man of faith.

Kay17: ^^^
Of course women can do anything and everything even better than men but society acts as a co.ckblocker that's the grouse of feminists.

I can't tell whether or not you are speaking seriously here so I won't respond to this.

If you read the link on the definition of Gender, you would know that it is the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes. Very simple to understand. Society dictates Gender, and it is fixed despite the fact that any human can pefrom those roles. It is like a division of labour created by society.

It seems that you have succeeded in confusing yourself. Let me see if I can help you understand what you are saying.

- According to you, the definition of Gender = the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes.

- You also hold that the society dictates the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of sexes and this is fixed.

- It is as at yet unclear to me whether you are in support or against the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes because with one side of your mouth, you claim that it is impossible NOT to distribute social responsibilities and duties based on sex and then with the other side of your mouth, you turn around and say the complete opposite by saying that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties on the basis of the sexes does not accurately represent reality. I don't know which is more amazing: Whether it is how you can claim that something is impossible and yet is the reality of the matter or how you are seemingly oblivious of such a huge contradiction.


I on the other hand hold that the distribution of social responsibilities and duties such as being the head of a family for instance is not fixed but rather can and is played by either sex who chooses to play the role. I pointed out to you that women in particular are not denied the right to be heads of their families. to which you replied by calling me a "stupid liar" here:

Anony1, (pardon my language) you are a stupi.d liar, so why does everyone including you say the man is the head of the family and the woman is the neck?!

The best way to show that I am a liar would have been by showing that the Nigerian society punishes women for playing the role of the head of the family. Using casual figurative expressions that have no bearing on reality as the basis for your argument just shows how poor your position is. It is similar to saying that the expression popular expression "white men can't dance" restricts the rights of white men from jumping or that the popular expression "women can't drive" actually denies women equal rights to driving vehicles. This is simply not the case.

Your arguments are deeply flawed.

I have had enough.

Have you now?

Kay17:
I do not hold the bolded rather it is what the patriarchial society holds. I'm merely observing. Now, if you understand what gender means, you wouldn't have said Gender is fluid. In reality women do pick up the supposed men's role, but it is not the intended role. If you agree with society that the man is the head of the family, it would be contradictory to claim a woman is the head.

So you agree that women can and do play supposedly men's roles yet you said that it is impossible here:
https://www.nairaland.com/1835324/adichies-feminism-vacuums-fallacies-gonzaga/24#25528527

You contradict yourself.

Secondly, I think you are confusing gender with roles played. Being male or female is more or less fixed but playing roles like being the head of the family is fluid.

Thank God, we have agreed sec. 45 distributes rights discriminately.

I don't think we have such an agreement.

Good you believe that, but what does society perceive, that's the concern.

The Nigerian society also allows both men and women to play the role of the head of the family. I don't know of any woman (or man) who has been prohibited from providing for her family because of her gender.

I would ask you to provide any examples you have, but judging from your past behaviour on this thread, I doubt you will.