₦airaland Forum

MacDaddy01: Dont worry.

I prefer to keep making you look like a dishonest person.

yawn....of course a smear campaign comes in handy when you fail to argue your point. Nothing new there, corrupt and incompetent politicians have been using that tactic for ages.

MacDaddy01: Everyone can see that Anony has nothing that he can use to criticise the humanist manifest and has to bring in 3 straw men of the apocalypse to help him with his dubious narrative.

These theists are failing hard. Just like Deepsight embarrassed himself on the evolution thread https://www.nairaland.com/1212475/evolution-simpletons




Anony, you are truly useless. You brought up an imaginary atheist creed which was quickly ridiculed and debunked but when faced with a humanist creed (Humanist manifesto), you have nothing. You are weak

Yawn....when you are ready, answer my question. Crying foul while dodging my question doesn't help you at all.

need deepheat for your butthurt?

MacDaddy01: lol....troll harder

more butthurt

MacDaddy01:

Empty barrel

butthurt

MacDaddy01: These tricks can work on mindless sheep like Ihedinobi but not me.

You asked a straw man question.


The equivalent of picking a quote from the Bible and ask if the christians agree with Oyedepo or Hitler.

The bible or the manifesto are there. No strawman is needed to agree or disagree with it. Humanist manifest came after these Darwin and Marx. So why bring them up if not for dubious purposes.


You are a douchebag

You have been heard

mazaje: Anony the giver that never stops giving. . .Any way I will like to hear your input on the thread I created https://www.nairaland.com/1213492/how-know-right-religion-right Thanks. . .

I would respectfully decline because we have had the same argument many times on this forum and from my experience with you, you are really not interested in getting an answer.
If you want my answer, I would gladly have a phone or skype conversation with you as I have discovered that audio conversations are usually more honest.
So if you are truly interested in my input, feel free to send me an email.

MacDaddy01: You are a real dubious douche!

First, you avoided the thread by running away yesterday

You avoided it today and I brought your attention to it today

Then you now take a quote from the humanist manifesto and bring up Marx, Darwin and Freud, who have very little or nothing to do with it.


You are not serious. That was a douche move and thank the Spag monster that people are seeing you for who you are. Note that my comment got likes despite the abuse.

Lol, it amuses me how you seem to think that you have some sort of entitlement to my time. I can choose to log off and log on as I see fit. . . .and no, having other things to do does not equate to "running away".

I have decided to proceed with our discourse by asking you a simple question. A "yes", "no" or "I don't know" would probably have been a good place to start. However you chose the dishonorable path of dishing out insults. As I said earlier, if you are not willing to proceed sensibly, I really can't help you.

It is also funny how you are more interested in a popularity contest than in having a proper discourse. I hope your "likes" increase and may you find solace in them

MacDaddy01: You are foolish. You have nothing.

Waste of time.


You just brought up 3 people who arent deeply religious and you disagree with.

Well my friend, if you won't take the discourse seriously then I really can't help you.

Ihedinobi: The transcript is difficult to read. And I can't watch the video because of the poor network where I am. But I'm interested in the discussion. Can anyone help me out with a summary of both arguments?

Bros na hardwork you wan give person be that

MacDaddy01: If you have nothing to offer shut up.


What does the quote there have to do with Karl Marx and co?

Why do you start with all these dubious tactics? If you have something against the humanist statement,say it. Dont waste my time with strawmen

They aren't strawmen. Marx, Freud and Darwin would agree completely with the above statements. Perhaps the problem is that you are not acquainted with their work.

Maybe you should take some time out to educate yourself on their worldview and philosophy then come back and give an answer.

MacDaddy01: Agreed. Wirinet is quite wrong here. Even catholic priests take an oath of celibacy- you have sex and you could be excommunicated.

Once again we agree

@macdaddy, You agree with this.

We are committed to the application of reason and science to the understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.

Do you therefore agree with the works of Marx, Freud and Darwin?

wirinet: yes, every organization is entitled to its values, but not when it is in conflict with your basic human right and dignity. For example, you cannot decree how one lives his/personal life outside the work place. Also yes, you cannot discriminate based on se.x religion or political affiliations and even moral definitions after being employed. Yes, these can be put into consideration before employment, not after. Even if it is in the contract of employment, it can later be contested in court as an illegal contract if it goes against basic fundamental human rights.

You cannot compare a football playing football in a park and risking injury to someone exercises her basic animal right on the right to bear children.

Same for Pepsi advert, who pay superstars huge sums to project their image. It would be unethical for the stars to be seen projecting the image of the company they are advertising

My dear friend, If you are going to claim that a contract that limits a person's sexual activity is a breach of basic human rights, then I fail to see how it is not equally a breach of basic human rights to dictate what soft drink a person chooses to drink. You can't have it both ways my dear.

moredendisc: @Mr_Anony2

https://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/12325475/640/12325475.jpg

Thanks a lot.

moredendisc: @Mr_Anony2

That program claimed to be a program that gets one thinking

Understanding God as Just, is a precursor to understanding Justification and the intricacy(ies) around it

If you're game, we can chat using instant messenger or meet somewhere mutually convenient to chat over coffee/tea

I'm game. Do you live near Oxford by any chance?

Kay 17: Anony2, you make bad analogies. Picking up examples from the imperfect world. Taken that God probably created existence of all ex deo or ex nihilo, he brings to the world total perfection borrowed from his self OR his power respectively.

The Creation as a result of this loan is good/perfect. Imperfection is presently nonexistent. The only way, imperfection/evil can originate is if God creates it ex nihilo (not deo) or delegates his power to humans in form of free will. Note that ex nihilo is logically impossible, hence freewill is logically impossible for trying to command/do the impossible.

I think your problem is that you describe evil as an existing thing that is created rather than a corruption of a created thing. Basically you are arguing a strawman because I do not in anyway suggest that evil was created but rather evil is a deviation from how a thing is supposed to be.
Also, neither do I see why free-will must necessarily be created ex-nihilo and not ex-deo. Remember God Himself has free-will. You will need to provide a strong argument for why free-will MUST have to be created ex-nihilo.

thehomer: Okay. How does the e-mail thing work? I just dismissed it since I didn't see the actual message.

Here's my email address: dibsdadon@yahoo.com. Email me your number and I'll give you a call

InesQor: I thought you are someone I know off Nairaland. Let's assume it's a case of mistaken identity. Please accept my apologies.

I would have thought you'll leave the matter when I chose to do the same.

Lol, I thought you were someone that knew me off NL but somehow I had long broken contact with and probably forgotten.
That's why I probed further. I was seeking some sort of reminder. Anyway, no worries.

InesQor: Yeah makes sense

Yeah, in other news what did you mean when you said this:

InesQor: P.S. That's how you just stopped all our communication.

InesQor: @Mr_Anony2

Note that I am not taking sides with her. I'm just saying, the way these things go especially in the U.S. don't be surprised that she might have a case.

I was referring initially to Efosanice's comment that school rules MUST be binding on both staff and students; I think this should not be the case unless there is a binding contract to that effect.

I am not saying that you are taking sides neither am I disagreeing with you. If there is a contract and she breached it, then the school has the right to terminate her appointment. Simples

I am also pointing to the fact that the case might really be aimed at raising media and public sentiment rather than justice

InesQor: And this is why I said I understand the sentiments. It is mere sentiment if it is not covered in the contract. Here they are filing for wrongful termination; she was fired for having premarital s'ex and not for being pregnant out of wedlock. And the only way they knew she had premarital s'ex was because she was discovered pregnant.

However, according to the news source, there is a "community covenant" signed before an employee is hired, forbidding pre-marital se'x, adultery and homose'xual behaviour. The point that she is making is that she would never have been found out if not that she was pregnant. e.g. any single male staff in the school could be having se'x every day and nobody would ever know. So she's pushing for gender discrimination.

As much as I agree that her act was irresponsible (considering her standing in the organization and it's branding), I still say that adult staff and minors in a school should not be held to the same rules UNLESS it is covered in their contract. Parents entrust the school to make decisions on behalf of their minors, but adults already have such an agency in themselves.

Now that you make it clear that she signed the contract but rather is sueing for gender discrimination, I'll have to say that I also don't see how she has a case. In fact I am even more certain now that she doesn't. The school is not under any obligation to go snooping around for incriminating evidence of those who are breaking it's rules. i.e. There are could also be female staff having pre-marital s[color=#000000]ex[/color] and getting away with it. I am convinced that if the school came by evidence e.g. video evidence of their bachelor male teachers having se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al intercourse, they would also sack them. It is not the school's fault that she decided to parade her "evidence" in front of everybody. She had the right to resign if she wanted to breach the agreement.

The way I see it, the only way her gender discrimination case can stand is if she can provide instances where the school caught male staff doing the same thing she did and yet refused to fire them.

On a side note though, the court case makes for a good media uproar to rile the public some more against those "bigoted discriminatory religious organizations". And my two cents says that's probably why her lawyer encouraged her to sue. A little media noise can tilt public opinion and help propaganda along and maybe eventually change laws

P.S. That's how you just stopped all our communication.

How do you mean?

InesQor: Don't forget, such students are generally minors. As adults, the staff working in such a school shouldn't be held to the same rules.

I see the sentiment in the situation, but I don't agree with the work ethics behind it.

On the contrary, I'll side with the school on this one. Every organization has it's values and once a an employee breaches them, the organization has the right to terminate her employment.

Her case is not much different from football clubs prohibiting their players from playing casual football in the park or the case of Ronaldinho's contract with Pepsi terminated because he was caught drinking Coca-cola.
Her pre-marital sex goes against the Christian image the school is trying to uphold just as Ronaldinho drinking Coca-Cola goes against the image Pepsi was trying to uphold.

The only scenario where I see the woman having a case is if such a situation was not covered in her contract.

Will you accept digital art?

musKeeto: Okay. I don't think it was necessary though.


Would it follow, that with an ability to make choices, comes a possibility for evil?


Easy. The wind isn't evil. It was going about its business. If the wind's evil, we could as well call the tree evil for falling...


Ah, a strawrobot ...
Do you consider drones evil?



Whose baby?


The man isn't evil. Accidents occur.

I think my point has been made. . . .which is that the world in itself is NOT EVIL even if trees fall down and crush babies, it is just nature going about it's business.

Now that leaves us with the other alternative i.e. Humans have the capability of being evil because by nature of their free choices comes the POSSIBILITY of evil.
However one must note that freewill also gives man the ability to to do good. In fact without free will, there would be neither good nor evil as man will just be like nature 'going about his business'.

Bearing the above in mind, we realize that a good God in order to create good men must give them free will. And those good men in order to remain good must exercise their freewill so as to make good choices. Where they decide not to make good choices, then they are the ones creating evil and not God. If there is evil in the world, it is as a result of man's choices and actions and not God's.

God made men and women true and upright; we're the ones who've made a mess of things. Eccl 7:29 (MSG)

thehomer: I didn't exclude descendants, you claimed that the traits were absent in both the ancestors and the descendants. My question then is; how do you know they are related?

Really? Is that the claim? How is that different from the concept of a transitional form? Then this is the quote you've been harping on that I told you and showed you was meaningless.

Hmmmm. . . . . .I think we should have an audio conversation. I'll send you an email.

musKeeto: Can left be right, or right left? What's opposite? All this word play and redefinitions tend to unnecessarily obfuscate matters.

There was no redefinition there only a clarification

Poor analogy...Is it the world that's evil or humans that have the capability to be 'evil'? Can the world be said to be evil?

Think about this question very carefully. Without the ability to make choices, would there really be such a thing as evil?

To illustrate what I mean, consider the following scenarios:

scenario 1: the wind blows down a tree so that it falls and crushes a baby, Is the wind evil?
scenario 2: a robot being controlled by someone or something cuts down a tree so that it falls and crushes a baby. Is the robot evil?
scenario 3: a man DECIDES to cut down a tree so that it falls and crushes a baby. Is the man evil?
scenario 4: a man cuts down a tree and it fell and crushed a baby HOWEVER the man DID NOT KNOW that a baby was there. Is the man evil?


If you have carefully pondered the above, then I believe you would have gotten your answer.

mazaje: again not supported by the bible. . .

Joh 6:44 No one can come to me[b] unless the Father who sent me draws him[/b]. And I will raise him up on the last day.

Rom 9:17 For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, "For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."
Rom 9:18 So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.

Where is the free will when according to the bible god chooses to have mercy on whom ever he will and hardens whom ever he wills?. . .

You are mistaking God's freewill with human freewill. The fact that God has a will which is superior to man's does not therefore mean that man has no freewill.

The passages you have shown only prove that God CAN override man's will if He so chooses but they do not prove that God HAS NOT given man freewill.

I'll focus on John 6:44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Notice that the bold is NOT the same as: No one can resist the Father when the Father draws him

I'll give you an example: "No one can come to Mazaje's party unless Mazaje invites him". This does not mean that the people who mazaje has invited therefore lack the freewill to refuse to attend his party.

Bearing this in mind, compare it to the parable of the wedding feast in Matthew 22:1-14; Notice that God is calling out to everybody and yet the ability to resist His call remains with you.

If you are going to honestly criticize biblical teaching, you must accurately critique the whole of it and not pick a few verses you like in isolation out of the entire scriptural mesh.

For more on this; you can look up this thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/996184/grace-destiny-vs-freewill-brethren.


(Do check it out; Ihedinobi, 5Solas, andromida and I plus a few more people really had an interesting conversation on that thread.

P/s: Things really kick off at around the middle of the second page)

Kay 17: I will also agree good and evil are opposites! However, Anony2 how does a Good World, which is Good by Nature become Evil?! If you can accept that, then you can accept Good God going Evil.

I wouldn't quite say that good and evil are opposites in the sense that they are not like two opposite clashing forces but more like the presence of one is the absence of the other.

How does a good world become evil? The same way a good cup becomes damaged.
How does a good cup become damaged? Improper use.
Who can use a thing improperly? Conscious beings with the ability to choose

None of this makes the creator of the world evil. In the same way Leonardo DaVinci doesn't become a bad painter because someone damaged the Mona Lisa by smearing it with animal dung.

Also the fact that I can accept a good painting like the Mona Lisa becoming an evil painting of animal dung does not lead us to the logical conclusion that therefore Leonardo DaVinci can lose his painting skills in a similar way. You made a very huge logical leap there my friend.

kmcutez: Nah, did not need to sample it before I smelt it on both of you. Stench is overwhelming from a distance. Stop lying. I know you loffed it. Enjoy your butt-diet too, my partner in butt-licking.

Yawn.... exchanging insults is all you are useful for and I've had my fill of that for the week. I've had my fun with you and now I'm done.

Thanks for being a good sport, I'll play with you again when next I feel the need to take a break from intelligent discourse.

Cheers.

Goshen360: @ Mr Anony2,

I follow up with our brother moredendisc. What do you want us to discuss on the subject of justification. I've listened to the debate.

I am on about the topic of Justification itself i.e. How is a christian justified before God? What I am most interested in is: What did Paul really mean? and how would the Early Christians who were reading him at the time have understood it? That I believe is the key to answering the question.

moredendisc: @Mr_Anony2

What exactly do you want to look into and what hopefully do you want in depth discuss about.

Which parts in the almost a hour and half discussion do you want to talk about?

The participants are all traveling on the same train but in different carriages (e.g. first class, carriage hallway, quiet carriage or the other carriage where one who doesn't want to be quiet sits in) Also some are traveling facing the direction of travel only, some are traveling backing the direction of travel only and some are traveling taking in the whole scenery ...

I think Tom was wary and wasn't explicit enough.

There were elements of cold feet without getting the feet wet or stepping into deep waters as it were by some of the other participants

Actually, what I am about is the question of Justification i.e. What was Paul really talking about? How did the Jews understand it, and how does it apply to us today? At the moment I am on the fence though I lean a little bit towards Tom however I am being careful not to be carried away by the lure of something novel. I will give it a careful study and discuss later but in the meantime, I would really appreciate your input. If you have some understanding of the subject, please share and perhaps it may help my understanding along a bit.

Cheers

P/s: How did you do the transcript?

Logicboy03: -choosing optimism over pessimism
-Joy rather than guilt
-beauty rather than ugliness

These 3 objections came from the poetic sentence because, literal meaning can be skewed.





Other than that its fine by me


edited

I also disagree with "moral principles are tested by their consequences". That is only half true. Moral principle are both tested by their consequences and the reasoning/logic behind them.

Good, I'll come back to this in a bit. Need to log off now.

thehomer: As you may have noticed, in these sorts of discussions, I try to be careful with words so once more, it isn't a definition of a worldview, it is a series of values that I agree with. And as I'm sure you can see, it is very different from the straw-man you initially presented. Even the previous list of principles you presented were very different from the poem you posted.

My friend, I will have to press you a bit further because I want you to commit to something. Do you agree with all the principles or are there any that you object to?

I need you to be crystal clear so that we don't proceed to argue strawmen.