₦airaland Forum

I guess they're just looking for something different. Just make sure it's genuine and not some sort of jungle fever

Greatpeter:
Ok now thanks.
I hope you're not annoyed?

Annoyed? No... I know better

Greatpeter:
Because the blacks are quite strong and energetic in bed than the whites period!

Speak for yourself

jclord:
@nferyn, I am trying to hold back from going Ghetto on your SORRY ASS! If I was not A Christian I would!!!!

I'm affraid that the fact that you are a Christian is causing your anger. Why do you have to be offended by people that have different beliefs?

jclord:
I am a Christian first and a black woman and I am proud to be one. I agree with the news as it was reported by LifeSiteNews.

It's not about whether or not you believe in it, it's about whether or not it is factual and correct

jclord:
I know your your statement was meant be offensive!

It wasn't meant to be offensive at all. I was just using an analogy to make things clear, but as it offended you, I appologise for offending your sensibilities

jclord:
I understand that as a liberal /atheist you believe you are superior to Christians!!!! But That is your problem and I refuse to make it mine. It is your life and your eternity !

I don't believe anybody to be superior to anybody else, but I guess that feeling is not reciprocal. I have had to good fortune of not groing up in a theist environment and not being implanted unsupported ideas in my head at childhood. I feel sorry for those that did have to go through that

jclord:
Take your fight up to God because he created the rules in the Bible that Christians follow. Obviously you are offended by God!

Be man enough to do that. I am so through with your sorry self!!!!!!!!!

Why on earth do you need to insult me? I have not insulted you.
I am as offended by God as I am offended by Santa Clause: not at all. Something imaginary cannot offend me

1. Definitions:
1. Humanism:
Humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion. Affirming the dignity of each human being, it supports the maximization of individual liberty and opportunity consonant with social and planetary responsibility. It advocates the extension of participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society, standing for human rights and social justice. Free of supernaturalism, it recognizes human beings as a part of nature and holds that values—be they religious, ethical, social, or political—have their source in human experience and culture. Humanism thus derives the goals of life from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and asserts that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny. • The Humanist Magazine (from http://www.americanhumanist.org/humanism/definitions.htm)
There are many different definitons of humanism, but I fully suscribe to the one above
2. Atheism:
Lacking the belief in a supreme being, nothing more, nothing less
3. utilitarianism:
A practical philosophical stance whereby you consider the correct mode of action as the one that produces the most intrensic good for the highest number of people. A more ellaborate explanation can be found here: http://www.trinity.edu/cbrown/intro/utilitarianism.html

2. Attitude towards Christianity
At best Christianity provides comfort to it's practitioners, even though their time could be used more productively. At worst, it leads to bigotry and evil acts. If you have the stomach and are not too easily offended, you can read Dawkins' article on religion which I posted on the board: https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-6509.0.html
I fully agree with his position

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=682.msg202539#msg202539 date=1139491126]May I ask something, nferyn? What really is your faith or philosophy of life?[/quote]I'm a moderately left wing humanistic weak atheist and I adhere to a not too strict utilitarian approach to life and social problems.

Layi,

I'm not saying that ultimately there is no designer, only that a designer is unnecessary and there does not seem to be any point where there was an intervention of that designer in the earth's history.
You can introduce Ockham's Razor in this context (from: http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node10.html)

Ockham's Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham in the fourteenth century: ``Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate'', which translates as ``entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily''.

But there are are theories which have the very same predictions and it is here that the Razor is useful. Consider for example the following two theories aimed at describing the motion of the planets around the sun

* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance.
* The planets move around the sun in ellipses because there is a force between any of them and the sun which decreases as the square of the distance. This force is generated by the will of some powerful aliens.

Since the force between the planets and the sun determines the motion of the former and both theories posit the same type of force, the predicted motion of the planets will be identical for both theories. the second theory, however, has additional baggage (the will of the aliens) which is unnecessary for the description of the system.

If one accepts the second theory solely on the basis that it predicts correctly the motion of the planets one has also accepted the existence of aliens whose will affect the behavior of things, despite the fact that the presence or absence of such beings is irrelevant to planetary motion (the only relevant item is the type of force). In this instance Ockham's Razor would unequivocally reject the second theory. By rejecting this type of additional irrelevant hypotheses guards against the use of solid scientific results (such as the prediction of planetary motion) to justify unrelated statements (such as the existence of the aliens) which may have dramatic consequences. In this case the consequence is that the way planets move, the reason we fall to the ground when we trip, etc. is due to some powerful alien intellect, that this intellect permeates our whole solar system, it is with us even now...and from here an infinite number of paranoid derivations.

For all we know the solar system is permeated by an alien intellect, but the motion of the planets, which can be explained by the simple idea that there is a force between them and the sun, provides no evidence of the aliens' presence nor proves their absence.

A more straightforward application of the Razor is when we are face with two theories which have the same predictions and the available data cannot distinguish between them. In this case the Razor directs us to study in depth the simplest of the theories. It does not guarantee that the simplest theory will be correct, it merely establishes priorities.

A related rule, which can be used to slice open conspiracy theories, is Hanlon's Razor: ``Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity''

yes donnie, it's not your god. Your God is the Christian God, the one that sorts out things for his followers such as the good Christians did during the crusade against the Cathars.
In 1209, during the "Albigensian Crusade" against the Cathar heresy in Southern France, the forces of Orthodox Catholicism had been besieging the city of Beziers, defended by the Cathar heretics, for some time. Finally they breached the walls of the city and prepared to storm it. The commander of the crusade, Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester, pointed out that not everybody in the city was a heretic, some of them wer good Catholics, so how should they treat the inhabitants when they captured the city? A monk who was actually present at the siege recorded the answer of the Papal Legate to the Crusaders, Arnaud-Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux, as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet." ("Kill them all. God will know his own." ) So the Crusaders followed his advice and killed everybody they could find in Beziers.
The Abbot presumably said it in everyday French, and the account we have is in Latin, but there seems no reason to doubt that he really did give that advice. (http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/42/messages/1003.html)

Truly, a different God than the one of the Muslims

It's an appaling thought that any girl would look for a man to provide comfort and economic security. Where's your sense of self-worth, girls? You should be able to take care of yourself and not wait untill a knight in shining armor comes by to take you to the promised land.

There's a great deal of money set aside by the WHO for dealing with the bird flu. For the first time in it's history, the WHO received twice as much as it had asked for fror dealing with the bird flu. I don't think the reaction is going to cost the Nigerian government all that much in the end. If it mutates and jumps species barriers, the outcome can be as devastating a AIDS, if not more.

Are dogs really mammals?

Seun, evolutionary theory [b]does not deal [/b]with the origin of the universe. Have you read this thread? That's a typical creationist distortion for which I've gone through great lengths to debunk. Evolutionary theory deals with life, starting from the first replicators. It illuminates the process by which all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor.
It explains that there is absolutely no need for a designer/creator to explain the complexity and diversity of life on earth. As for the complexity of the universe, compared to life, it is not complex at all. If there is no need for a designer to explain the complexity of life, why would there be a need for a designer to explain the less complex non-life?

And even if the universe were horribly complex, a designer of that universe would necessarily need to be even more complex, as he would need to conceive that complexity. How then do you explain the designer. Inserting a designer in the process solves absolutely nothing, it only makes thing less intelligible.