₦airaland Forum

thehomer: This is erroneous for many reasons and I'll go ahead to point them out.

1. We see other people and due to their similarities to ourselves, we reasonably conclude that they're like us in a significant way.
2. We do not see a Christian God and we do not have access to him.
3. I think are objective facts about subjective experiences so someone concludes that other humans are significantly like them based on their appearance, behaviour and other physical features, it would be absurd to simply conclude that it is "exclusively all in my head".
4. Observing humans acting as humans isn't a hallucination. A hallucination is a mistaken perception of something that isn't actually there but we actually do see other people.
5. Then there's the inherent problem with solipsists forming a group. I mean, who is the real person and who is the figment of the imagination in the group of solipsists?

In summary, it may be an attempt at humour but I think that the idea of the bus campaign was a good one and it did fulfill its purpose which was basically raising the public consciousness.

Very well said.

Thank you for reading Thanks to me for reading myself

Ihedinobi: I mean to read the rest of the thread, but it does look like atheist Daddy GO has finally gone nuts.

Lol, I think i need to change the title of the thread, it is not what Dawkins really said. It is merely a parody of him.

Edit: I have now added a small print disclaimer

Logicboy03: Your question has already been answered- God cant give freewill because

a) with him there is no freewill due to his omniscience and knowing how we will die and wheher we will choose to worship him
b) your God doesnt exist.

yawn....you haven't shown that God doesn't exist neither have you shown how God's knowledge prevents you from making choices

Logicboy03: The fact remains that you are subjectively experiencing your own consciousness.


This argument doesnt help you because God becomes a subjective experience.

Who said anything about God? I am only pointing to the absurdity that comes with writing something off merely based on the fact that one can't personally observe it. If we stay true to that method of validation, we must equally write of everything that we cannot personally experience and eventually the only basis for existence must be things in our minds.

Logicboy03: Really?


the only consciousness you can experience is yours but you can observe others.

The very fact that someone can tell you something that you have never heard of before is the separating line between a dream and real life

But you will still be subjectively experiencing the person telling you words. It is all in your head.

Logicboy03: We already dont have freewill with respect to your God. Did he give us the ability to have a similar knowledge as him?

He understands the universe yet, he constantly prevents us from understanding the universe by witholding such knowledge from us and making barrriers such as an oxygenless space so that we cant find more about outerspace.


We can even look further back to the destruction the Tower of Babel. Surely, is God afraid of letting man use his freewill to build a tower to its limits?

Or even Adam and Eve, why was God angry at their learning of knowledge? So he didnt want us to use our freewill to learn? He wantedf humans to be ignorant and naked in the first place? God limits our freewill from the beginning



#God and freewill destroyed for the 4th time

I fail to see how your answer relates to the question raised. Having similar knowledge is not the same as having the ability to choose.

Logicboy03: You have switched again.


However, it still put your god as a subjective experience. The same goes for your god, it is all in your mind- doesnt exist outside your mind.


Solipsism doesnt help you. Failed thread

Lol, I haven't switched, I am staying consistent to the solipsist viewpoint which is that you don't have a consciousness because the only consciousness I can observe is my own therefore you are merely a part of my consciousness.

It's very hard to disprove that.

Logicboy03: okay, lets review;




Consciousness is physical. So you cant tell the difference between a conscious person and someone who is not conscious?

How? Do you mean by your own subjective experience?

How do you know that other people have distinct subjective experiences other than yours. How do you know that they are not merely a part of your consciousness?

Logicboy03:

Who else will I blame? I dont believe in God and as I said earlier, I blame my fellow humans.

However, if you say god exists then he is a sick being for watching that horrendous thing happen while folding his arms.


like an atheist said; "the difference between me and your God is that in an isolated area where a man is raping a woman, I will do my best to stop it but your God wouldnt"

Which brings us back to the question: Would you rather God let man have his free-will or that God took away man's free-will?

striktlymi: It's either you don't know what 'straw man' is or you don't know what the particular argument is about.



You see my point? You didn't even take your time to understand the research. The research more about Americans (per the various category) and their knowledge of religion broadly speaking.



No need to address the above until you know what the crux of the argument is. Sorry!

Lol, I like how you seem to have this firm believe that against all odds, logicboy will one day follow an argument logically. It is so adorable

Logicboy03: Spoken like a true slave of the white christians. Note as my guy didnt blame his christian white slavemasters that took the slaves ,he blamed the few black slave catchers that joined the evil trade.


I always ask this question;

There were jewish-nazi collaborators but no one blames the Jews for the Nazi holocaust but we will blame the few blacks that engaged in the slave trade orchestrated by Europeans?

But hey, wouldn't you agree that slavery is an example of men exercising their free-will?

Logicboy03: The bold doesnt not follow. Non sequitur. Also doesnt make sense

Lol, how so?

musKeeto: Lol @ bolded.


Funny, hence cometh the question
Why is the mad man mad? Does the mad man view us as sane?

lololol. That question points to the fact that there must be an objective standard for rationality by which we judge sanity or else everyone will be mad.

Logicboy03: A parody of what? That has little relation to Dawkins. Bad parody


Why not address solipsism on its own? Or use an argument of solipsism made by someone to make a parody out of?

Lol, I think the parody is apt.

ooman: AND SO DOES GOD. NOW YOU ARE TALKING WITH SENSE, OR ARE YOU AN ATHEIST ALREADY??

Lololol..........This answer is priceless!

SNCOQ3: Sorry, perhaps we're expected to address the issue; I just find Dawkin's activities amusing.

Nah, Dawkins didn't really do that, the op is just making a parody of Dawkins' arguements. If Dawkins holds that God does not exist because he can't physically observe God, we can take it a step further to argue that other people other than Dawkins equally do not have a consciousness because Dawkins cannot by physical observation conclude that there exists a separate consciousness other than his own.

ooman: Outside consciousness, there is no observation!!! Get that into your little dafty head?

lolol, exactly. But when I die I won't be able to observe the universe....Therefore the universe only exists within my consciousness.

musKeeto: You know that the mind and whatever you experience is subjective. It would also mean the experience of God would be subjective too. Abi, no be so?

Na so, ibu nwa mara akwukwo. The point of the solipsists is that if everything you experience is subjective to you, then everything is in your mind.

There's no way I can prove what's in your mind. Same would go for God, right?

There is no way that you can prove that other people even have minds in the first place not to talk of what is in them

EDIT: Seems you changed mind to consciousness.

To me they mean the same thing, I only edited it for the sake those who like to split hairs

Logicboy03: https://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c114612/images/2009/atheistbusphotos3.jpg


http://old.richarddawkins.net/videos/3494-atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign



For those interested in truth and not straw men op

Lol, so it wasn't obvious to you that I was presenting a parody?

ooman: Dead or not, you are still part of the cosmos - the cosmos includes the universe and everything outside or inside oF it.

THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGES IS CONSCIOUSNESS!!

You are missing the point. How do you know this for sure outside your own consciousness?

musKeeto:
Bros, how far?

Lol, how far wetin?

ooman: There is no organ such as a mind. Its all in your head. Religion can really make one crazy. ugh!!

Exactly! it is also all in your head that a universe exists because if you die, how will you know that a universe is still existing?

ooman: delusions of grandeur plus psychosis fights the author of this thread

Lol true...but think about it carefully. can you really provide any proof that another person's consciousness exists other than yours?

SNCOQ3: "Atheist Evangelical Worldwide" Daddy G.O aka Dawkins with his convert behind a banner and colorful balloons...soon they'll start organizing crusades.

While I appreciate your comment, I think you missed the point of the OP

Logicboy03: Empty barrel!

Next!

trololo

Logicboy03: Who is talking about style? Did you see the list of irrational threads that most NL christians subscribe to and post?


You have nothing bro. Werent you avoding me in the first place? However, this thread was too truthfaul and painful for you to leave alone.

We know the truth; christianity does breed anti-intellectualism in many cases and intellectualism in fewer cases

Empty barrel!

Next!

InesQor: No sir. An agent can be omnipotent and CHOOSE (haha freewill again) to manifest where desired without being everywhere at once.

I personally believe God is omnipresent but your logical conclusion is not contingent.

You are making the mistake of expecting logicboy to actually employ his non-existent rational faculties? I wish you luck.

Logicboy03: lmao......notice that everyone on my lists engages in both scientific and philosophical debates by their threads and comments.

Your list is ful of people that do not engage in such, rather;

Another pseudo-intellectual doing his best to avoid discussing the core of the argument/topic.


Clearly, I was talking about the rationality of their arguments and not their style. But hey, you are free to play dumb and use ad hominen. Afterall, that is the atheist pseudo-intellectual's way of avoiding the crux of the matter.

musKeeto: Same with your God claims..

Yawn...

daylae: logicboy needs a new username. And should be sactioned by other atheists for this show of folly. Yet as a theist,am also embarrassed.

Lol, that handle is a misnomer if I ever saw one.

Logicboy03:

The is the same mistake that Ihedinobi and Anony keep making. Such a substitution can only work for direct opposites in limited cases.


Anyway, you are not blind so you can read my reply to Anony. Anony dare not make a list of the regular christians here because unlike atheists, most christians cant defend their faith. I dont know why you people live in denial of this fact

Lololol, Anyone can make a list of usernames. It doesn't in anyway prove that the names on the list are therefore intellectual

Anony
Goshen360
Ihedinobi
Davidlyan
Frosbel
Enigma
striktlymi
Reyginus
JeSoul
Image123
toba
debosky
ishilove
Bella3
Olaadegbu e.t.c.

See, I can make a list too

~logicboy debunked

InesQor: I understand and appreciate the same. My usage of "past" and "future" is anthropocentric, and was for the sake of clarity.

I knew what you meant from the onset. It was just amusing to watch them grasp for straws.