₦airaland Forum

Abuzola:
ISLAM MEANS PEACE the word Peace is derived from salam.
Most muslim know this so don"t feed us with your sporus, We are muslims we know our Religion unlike christianity that Jesus never knew of it

Abuzola, you're a very funny character!  
Abeg stop making ignorant noise. Most educated Muslims know that 'islam' means 'submission', not peace. If you have a quarrel with that, take it to those Muslims' front yard. No informed or educated Muslim will continue to spread this ignorant confusion of the meaning of 'islam' - your own is even more mechanical and magical as to push 'islam' into Jesus' mouth! "My islam I leave with you" - indeed! Yeye.

You would also have made the same mechanical magic with other verses in John -

    __________________

    John 16:33 -
   'These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace'

           replace with Abuzola's magic, it becomes:

   'These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have islam'

    __________________

      John 20:19 -
     'Jesus stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.'

           replace with Abuzola's magic, it becomes:

     'Jesus stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Islam be unto you.'

    __________________

     John 20:21 -
    'Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you:
     as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

           replace with Abuzola's magic, it becomes:

    'Then said Jesus to them again, Islam be unto you:
     as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.


That is the magic between Aramaic, Greek and Quraish that you have been playing here and shouting out your ignorance. Islam I leave unto you koo, Quariash I bring near you ni!

ttalks:
Pilgrim, Pilgrim, u have started being naughty once again

I beg sir! I beg sir! I beg sir!
I promise to be good to you from henceforth. I beg you sir!

ttalks:
He is simply refering to the churches he is aware of and not all churches.

I will not even argue sir. I beg sir O! _{I don't ever want to fall out with you sir!}

ttalks:
I thought u used to say something about generalising. Are u now allowing the generalization to determine ur response?

No sir! I beg you well-well sir! I will not argue sir!

ttalks:
Let's not conclude on things that haven't happened yet. Let's deal with what is currently on at the moment.

Okay sir! I comply with your stance sir! _{even tho I no fit agree, I still dey beg!} It's good to love the brethren sir! I will love all who follow Christ with love in their hearts - whether they gather or meet in Cathedrals or at barbeach in VI. Yes sir! God bless you sir!

Aremugangan:
@Pilgrim- if dis shd b a religious debate, den i ll prefer 2do it wt a much mor knowledged person wu is realy vast abt d bilbe dan avin ur li2 brain "disturbd" as u myt nt b able 2comprehend d facts i ll gv u frm d bible simply coz u av li2 or no knowledge abt d@ book. Afterall, u dont kno it cover 2 cover, u only kno w@ ur pastor preaches on occasions(wen u go 2d church). Pls if u dare dim it fit, gv Qur'an chapter 2 a trial (we av it translatd in2 millions of langs) xcpt if u wnt 2prove me wrong, fear ll nt permit u 2read it. I dnt mind ur reference if u av any. Pls stp livin in ignorance.

Instead of ducking behind this unintelligent short-hand and saying nothing, save your drama and show that other Muslims are W-R-O-N-G when they clearly hold that 'islam' is NOT "peace".For pointing out such things, THEY must be "ignorant" and only your shorthand scripts with vacant holes can be more enlightened. Don't amuse me with such drama if you can't apply yourself appropriately.

@ttalks,

ttalks:
You know that there is a difference between bashing or 'bad-mouthing' the church and then speaking against the errors committed by some members of the church.

We know the difference.

ttalks:
If you really go through Kunle's posts and articles objectively, you'll notice that he is doing the latter and not the former.

Really? Sample:

'To cut the long story short i have come to the realization with a renewed conviction
that there is no church i am aware of today that is doing the will of our lord Jesus christ
and the churches we have today are a marked departure from the churches founded
by the apostles.' [here]

Someone may not be aware of any church doing the Lord's will - hence, "no church" does the will of the Lord Jesus Christ. But that is a different thing to go further claiming that "the churches we have today" have departed from churches founded by the apostles. Even more is the idea that the church as it is today has no scriptural basis - and many who agree with him and advertising their own "church" may not see that one.

We agree the right thing has to be done; but if your own "church" was the focus of the 'right thing' we seek to correct, I'm sure you'd still be pleading for 'objectively' reading issues. What is wrong is wrong - end of story.

@petres_007,

The problem with fawning adulators like you is the predictable hollowness in your outlook. First, it is improper for others to spew out their opinions - have you not done the same thing?!? You can say that the opinions of others are not welcome, what makes yours any more welcome than any others? You're merely drooling than making any point.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]Someone even said here, that this is how sects/cults starts – someone thinks everyone but him is in the wrong etc. and then goes of by himself, gathers followers etc. What nonsense! That’s not what he bible says! In fact, to tell you how serious this issue is, there curse on anyone who teaches anything different from the Gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the apostles (and by extension, the scriptures of today).[/quote]How many readers' posts in this thread have been teaching anything different from the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that only the ideas of you and your folks can pass the curse-test?

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]And again:
17 ¶ I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.
18 For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.
Romans 16:17-18[/quote]If you knew the meaning of Galatians 1:6-9 and Romans 16:17-18, you'd not be busy quoting those verses against anyone who does not cut into your mold. As far as no one here has been preaching any other Gospel than what was preached by the apostles, what is your point? Did you take time to check up the meaning of "dissensions" to see it is working against your own coterie?

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]When its an issue the bible clearly speaks about. You’re opinions are not welcome.[/quote]Good - your opinion was unnecessary in the first place.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]You either take it or leave it! The bible says to stay away from false ministers and organisations. If you’re a Christian you should comply. If you’re not, don’t comply give your opinions. Its so simple.[/quote]False brethren use nice speeches to deceive themselves and claim that others are "false" - from such we should stay away. It's that simple. When someone spends all his life condemning every church with all kinds of labels, there's a different spirit at work - that also should be avoided. You can have your own opinions and excuses for not fellowshipping in church, yet such tendencies have a different voice engineering them.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]In the book of Revelation, the bible tells of a LovePeddler, an asulterous church organisation riding a beast, the message to God’s people within was very simple, as all the others throughout the scriptures. COME OUT OF HER!!! End of story. If you remain there (in churches where the word is being preached), YOU WILL COMPROMISE! Its only a matter of time.[/quote]Lol, you're a predictable loser! The LovePeddler in Revelation does not preach the Word, mr 'opinion'. When people come out of churches where the Word is being preached, where do they go? Your separatist alarm is not Biblical, sorry.

[quote author=petres_007 link=topic=282213.msg4022204#msg4022204 date=1244890050]And I want to use this opportunity to reach out again to anyone out there who by God’s grace, is tired of delusion out there in the name of God and his Christ, anyone who’s looking for a place to fellowship with believers, who by God’s grace (and not because we’re more intelligent than anybody else) are earnestly contending for the faith handed down by the Lord Jesus and his apostles, which is well preserved for us today in the scriptures, I invite you to join us in our “church”. Interestingly, we’ll be starting (tomorrow the 14th of June 2009) a very juicy series on the validity of the bible, we’ll be taking a look at the council of Nicaea and related issues.[/quote]This is how you recruit losers to your coterie - you condemn other churches and make your own "church" the better alternative - yes, predictably and deliciously using 'the grace of God' as cover. May God have mercy upon us all and lead you out of this slow poison and self-defeating brigade. I am very familiar and well informed of the sort of movement you're preaching.

huxley2:
As you have admitted, if "Empirical verification and falsifiability" are not pertinent to the discussion WHY was it introduced into the discussion?

I didn't 'admit' your misinterpretation. This was what I threw out as immaterial -

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg4022053#msg4022053 date=1244886371]Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.[/quote][/list]

Like I said:
'The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy.'

travelxpat:
i totally agree with you.i have even reduced the number of times i go to church now.all i try to do is have my personal believe in the TRINITY .i have a lot to discuss on this issue .My father stopped attending church service from the age of 29,my grand father stopped attending church at an early age.But the distinct thing about them is that ,they lived a righteous life ,they were convinced about CHRIST and as far as i know ,they made heaven.Doctrines are been , let me use the word synthesize in this part of the world ,every church wants to be a pacesetter,so they hardly listen to the voice of the Holy spirit these days.

It's alright to agree and disagree; but how does the case of your father, grandfather and you of ceasing to attend church set an example for other Christians?







Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is;
but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Hebrews 10:25

Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou.
These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day.
Isaiah 65:5

How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time,
who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit.
Jude 18-19

oduwaye:
I do not know much of the bible but I am trying to look for a passage in the bible where
after God had blessed David so much David was so grateful of God’s blessing and asked God to go and bless others too. Then God said to David that as long as you continue to praise/ worship /thank me I will continue to bless you

Hi oduwye,

It does not seem clear enough (not sure about such reference); but perhaps this could help for the moment until more detail to what you're seeking:

Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee.
Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us.
God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.
[Psalm 67:5-7]

If you have some more details to what you're seeking, then someone might be able to help. Cheers.

@huxley2,

Please don't cheapen this discussion - it's already gravitated to needless boredom.

huxley2:
No I did NOT "have reservations while endorsing it", as you said. I endorsed it while having some little reservation about the wording. Note the difference.

What's the difference, really? You endorse it . . . were endorsing it . . . had endorsed it - whatever the position, you did so - with some reservation; or more correctly as in your quote: "a position I endorsed (with a little reservation)." My question was: why the reservation? You did NOT have reservations while endorsing it just strikes out the "little reservation" you expressed in having "endorsed" it, kwo?

Please, enough of all these games. It is immaterial whatever you endorsed or did not endorse with or without reservations however expressed.

huxley2:
Correct. One should hope that the validity of a proposition is rated against some independent objective standard.

[>pilgrim.1 rolls eyes< ] "Correct . . . Independent objective standard. . "? Was that not the very thing I had been pointing out for ages?? What was the point of your turning round and round to bore the discussion with such needless exercises only for you to come back to the same thing I've been saying all along?!? It's a bit annoying to read you circling round like this in discussions, and I do hope we can move on beyond this gamble.

huxley2:
But this was NOT the point Wirinet was making. He was commenting on how people accept or reject candidate beliefs. When one accepts/rejects a belief it does not mean that the belief is true(valid)/false. It simply means that one has check it against some "standard" system, and one accepts or rejects it based on that one's already established "standard" (or belief system, to use Wirinet's words).

I have no quarrels about your understanding of wirinet's post as I've made my point already. I asked how that deviated in any wise from the normative (or objective standard(s)) and I haven't got any answers as yet; so please let's move beyond this point.

huxley2:
Now, how did "empirical verification and falsifiability" got smuggled into this discussion is still beyond us. All I can say is that you are trying to play smoke-and-mirrors, as is your wont.

I didn't play any games nor smuggled in anything strange as the dog-chasing-his-tail pranks you've been playing all along. Empirical verification and falsifiability have absolutely NOTHING to do with anyone's "belief system" - put in another way: "The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system." You've called that "Correct", so what's the matter? If you thought otherwise, please show how; and since you're unable to show such, what's the mental crass you've been arguing over and over since?

This is the namby-pamby logic in atheist-discussions that I long anticipated in your style - make long boring arguments, seek diversionary antics (which repeatedly fall flat on their face), scuttle round your self-defeating premise . . and when you've tired yourself out, you accuse others of any number of smoke-and-mirrors games. This evidently has not worked in your favour, nor will it do so. The options open to you now is either move beyond this doodling recurring decimal in your failed logic; or keep repeating the very same boring moil and confirm the hollowness in your logic. I bet the latter would be more appealing to you, but I won't buy. Cheers.

huxley2:
Why do you even need to ask when NO correlation was made or implied. I was making a higher level analogy, not anything specific about parsimony. For "Parsimony", I could have used any number of other words/concept such as "reciprocity, double-jeopardy, exclusion, etc, etc. Please, please, don't go thinking that I am correlating these to falsification again, as you seem to have difficulties with analogy.

Since it was a far-fetched analogy, it was irrelevant in bringing it up - regardless of any number of such analogies. You cannot beggar falsifiability to such beggared nuances. Throw this needless reaction out and let's move past this doodling.

huxley2:
If Wirinet did not use these terms, why was it relevant to the discussion? Nothing in Wirinet's post suggest the relevance of these terms. All he said was the cross-checking of a candidate belief against one's already established belief system, a position I endorsed (with a little reservation). Now, how does this warrant the introduction of "empirical verification and falsifiability"

Why do you have reservations while endorsing it? How is the validity of any claim based on anyone's worldviews?

huxley2:
I await to see why these concept were relevant to the debate.

The validity of any claim should not be based on anyone's belief system.

huxley2:
OK, I see your problem. You don't understand analogy. This is an ANALOGY, as indicated by the used of the phrase "It is a bit like ". Hurrrm, for goodness sake.

I quite understand analogies and your point just doesn't cut it - hence, my asking the correlation between both words (parsimony and falsifiability) - these two ideas even in analogies are at opposite ends and irrelevant.

huxley2:
Who said "empirical verification and falsifiability" were related to one's worldview? I don't think wirinet even said that.

Did I say wirinet said that, hmm? Are you even reading at all or just doodling around? Read again:

[list][quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=279631.msg4021801#msg4021801 date=1244877862]When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do
with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"[/quote][/list]

At any rate, please stop doodling around and show me how the validity of any claim depends on one's "belief system". That's all.

huxley2:
No, I an not tryin to divert the thread, but simple giving an example of how falsification is used in science, as you have not shown that you understand the concept. Another example where falsification can be demonstrated is the "principle of the conservation of energy".

What do you understand by falsification? Still waiting!

I posted you the link so often when I mentioned falsifiability - do you have any other ideas? Whatever example one may use to discuss falsifiability, what does it have to do with anyone's "belief system"?

Aremugangan:
Dnt gt tins obfuscated. W@'s d diff bt peace n submission? Cn a person wu is nt submissiv b peaceful? Islam is nt a religion where we only blv d@ God xists, rada, it's a religion where we kno n by modification, beyound evry resonabl doubt confirm HIS xistence. Muslims re nt followers of shadows bt d tru worsipper of d only God (Exodus 20:3-5), (Qur'an 114;1-4).

What have you said just now? Are you confused between the words 'salaam' and 'islam'? Or your short-hand scripts get any better by quoting from the same Bible that Muslims don't believe in? What really
nauseates me is some of you going around to confuse both yourselves and your friends, and then coming back to justify the same confusion. I know - I should be calm and talk like 'butter won't melt in my mouth' . . but enough of all this cheap soliciting and uneducated guesses from you guys.

[quote author=$osisi link=topic=282213.msg4021319#msg4021319 date=1244858081]It's interesting that KunleOshob mentions TV01 another individual with a form of Christianity.
Believers should be careful about any Christian who tells you he has read the Bible thoroughly and now knows the mind of God concerning every issue and everyone else is in error.
Or one who spends time critizing virtually everything in "his faith" and has a ready answer for all questions.
That is the beginning of heresies and cults[/quote]May God bless you with His good Hands and never take them off your life for ever! You have just captured the essence of what many people have been noting all along in sounding the note of caution. The history of many cults within Christendom began with those same features -

● everyone else (except themselves) is in error

● nobody else is doing the will of God except they and their friends

● they understand everything about God's ways and can't be corrected

● Christianity has to be narrowed to their own idea or nothing else works

● the whole 'Church' has gone wrong and they alone are standing upright

Dem plenty - but when the results come up after a while, all arguments come to an end as the display speaks for itself.

huxley2:
Who said "falsification" depends on one's worldview? Why does it need say in this debate? It is a bit like say "The Principle of Parsimony does not depend on one's worldview". Not only does it not make any sense, it is superfluous to the discussion.

What is the correlation between parsimony and falsifiability, huxley2? Are you so desperate to divert this thread with such weak antics that you're finding it falling flat on its face repeatedly?

When wirinet opined that the basis of accepting something as valid was whether or not it fitted one's 'belief system', my response pointed out the fallacy of that idea from the onset - that was when I mentioned falsifiability:

empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do
with anyone's worldviews or "belief system"

If you'd taken a look when I repeatedly referred you to that same point, all these unnecessary reactions would have been curtailed. However you slice it, there just is no way that such an idea in 'principle' could even be justified. Just to throw out your needless repetition over this matter was why I asked you to show me how one's belief system is the basis of validating any claim. Since you have not been able to show that, what is all the reaction about?

huxley2:
Who said "falsfification" means that it is false. These are my words;

If a theory cannot in principle be shown to be false, then the theory is deemed unfalsifiable and more that likely rejected. With respect to The Theory of Evolution, it can be shown to be false in a number of ways. Because it can be shown to be false, it is considered a "good" scientific theory.

What, in your own words, do you understand by the term "falsification"?

This discussion is not about TTE, and I'm not going to waste my time with you on that diversionary tactic.

Abuzola:
. . .Islam I leave with you; my Islam I give you.

Please stop murdering other people's languages! How could Jesus have been speaking Quraish and saying the things you're putting into His mouth?

The word 'peace' in Aramaic is "shlama", not "islam" [see Wiki]; in Greek it is "eirēnē" [ειρήνη].

Abuzola:
What is Islam ? Islam means Peace in Arabic therefore :

Are you the only Muslim who does not know the meaning in Arabic of the word 'Islam'? Why are you perpetrating this huge ignorance that has been thrown out ages ago? Let me remind you:

A. Islam means submission, not peace;

B. Salaam is the word for peace in Arabic.

(1) 'Contrary to popular belief amongst Muslims, Islam does NOT mean peace.' [Greek Muslims blog]

(2) 'The Arabic word Islam translates in English language as Submission' [submission.org]

(3) 'The word Islam means "submission"' [Wikipedia].

Reacting with such hell-cries is very unintelligent and self-defeating indeed. If in all possible worlds you alone in the universe do not understand what every intelligent mind can easily decipher, what in the world are you crying "what the hell" is this, that and the other for? But let me help your amusement:

huxley2:
What the hell does this paragraph mean? What the hell is this?

it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview).

And what does this means?

should base falsifiability on someone's worldview

1. Falsifiability does not depend on one's worldview. if it does, please show me.

2. Are you arguing that one should base falsifiability on their worldview?

That's all it means, and I don't know what's biting you to be shouting "hell" this and that.

huxley2:
How does falsifiability relate to this debate? Are you referring to the concept of falsifiability that is used in science to test for the "goodness" of a scientific theory or principle?

You're obviously disjointed. Go back to the very page where you began to discuss wirinet's statement and see the connection. Short memory is a very unhelpful equipment and does not serve your cause well enough.

huxley2:
It is generally accepted that most "good" scientific theory must be capable of being falsified and if you formulate a theory you must state under what condition it could be shown to be false. For instance Karl Popper once thought that The Theory of Evolution was not a scientific theory because it was incapable of being falsified. But upon being told about how TTE could be falsified he withdraw his opposition to TTE.

Tsk-tsk. The first lesson you've got to learn is this: 'That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false' - miss that, miss everything! Your mind boggles with the idea that something "could be shown to be false" without the understanding of conditions on which that very thing could be falsifiable. Even so, falsifiability does not depend on anyone's worldview. QED.

huxley2:
Can you think of a way in which TTE could be falsified?

How is falsification relevant in this debate?

Ah, nice try - are you running out of gas that you're seeking to deflect this thread to an argument about TTE? You're sounding very cheap! The point at present is not about TTE, but about the very thing that you seemed to be peeved about: that falsifiability has nothing to do with any worldview. If you believe it has to be, please show me and stop whinging about what the hell is this, that and the other.

Nikky23:
@Pilgrim, i am trying to get past it. trying hard but it gets harder.

I understand and cannot pretend to know everything about the difficulties that come along with such experieneces. That's why I noted that "it will take time" . . . but you will get there with time.

@huxley2,

huxley2:
Well the point I was making was that the statement is by and large what everyone does and and standard procedure everywhere:

I understood you the first time; and honestly, it does not seem to add anything to what we're both conversing about.

huxley2:
I said I accepted it in principle, except for some minor terminological looseness. But your position was that it is blatantly wrong, which I oppose. My problem with the statement was the use of the words "own belief system".

In 'principle' - I do not deny your premise, nor am I in any position to oppugn your rights to appealing to such an approach for arriving at your position. The point in mine is this: broadly speaking, it is a self-defeating premise for falsifiability (which is not contingent on someone's worldview). If, on the other hand, you're saying that I should base falsifiability on someone's worldview, would you be happy for me to reject your claims based on my own theistic outlook or rather consider your statements on their own merit independent of anyone's worldviews?

huxley2:
The statement, as it stand is generally true for most people. For instance, if I said to you that I just saw a ghost or and angel, you would be minded to believe me because in your "own belief system" ghosts and angels exists. But if I said, "I just saw Mohammed or a Jinn" you are most unlikely to believe me.

Now, how did you arrive at your position? Obviously, by referring to "your own belief system".

No, huxley2. Your problem is that you're narrowing the discussion on reality to conclusive bias. I do not think the reality of such things as ghosts and spirits should be dependent on anyone's dispositions - not mine nor anyone else's. That is precisely what I had been trying to share with you and several atheists on NL. Anyone could make a zillion and one other claims - but it is a different thing to come to any informed positions about such a reality or existence; and the falsifiability of such claims are (and should be) independent of anyone's worldview. This is the reason (in my view) that some atheists have come to be inclined to believing in the existence of such phenomena - not because they previously were holding to a belief in such things, but rather because they exposed to such experiences independent of anyone's worldviews.

huxley2:
When Pastor Adeboye claims that Jesus spoke to he, do you think a moslem is likely to believe him?

That Muslim may not believe him based on his own conclusive bias. Such would, however, not be the same thing as arriving at a concrete position of a fairness divorced from one's worldview.

huxley2:
My only quibble with the comment was the use of the words "own belief system", which as I have admitted is generally true is not very "objective" and therefore lacks generality.

That's it in a nutshell: it lacks generality - and this generality is what I've been inclined to more than anything else. I cannot peremptorily reject or affirm  anyone's claim on the basis of bending it back to my own preconceptions.

huxley2:
To make is more precise and therefore objective, I would tend to use the phrase;

a universally accepted standard system

Much as you hate to admit, that is why you found it hard to address my last question above. It is universally accepted that light particles are not capable of penetrating through layers of solid objects. How do we know this? - Because, solids objects reflect light. So you would intially reject the claim based on the universally accepted standard "that solid objects reflect light particles"

No, I did not find your question "hard", and perhaps you are missing the point in your own premise. I have no problem with any "universally accepted standard system", and would have quickly asserted the same thing as you did for light particles.

Just as in your previous example about a man surviving without a heart, the same "universally accepted standard system" would have made you reject that claim of anyone surviving without a heart - whereas, what you failed to take into consideration is that we cannot draw any hard or concrete conclusions that in all possible worlds there is NO ONE who has ever survived without a heart! Doctors know that the "universally standard" of which you speak is that people ought to have functional hearts to survive - so what happens when there are cases where people deviate from the "universal standard". . are they going to reject the anomaly just because it does not fit into the mold of their own concepts?

This is why I'm being careful here: one does not just make a conclusion based merely on "I-accept-it-according-to-its-fitness-to-my-own-bias". I don't know if you are saying that falsifiability is contingent upon that same idea.

huxley2:
Note: to have a "universally accepted standard system" does not mean that one has the TRUTH. Everyone uses one of standard, or they may use their private or some communal one. For instance, When I said;

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

You are likely to reject this base on your "own belief system" which is Christianity, according to which Jesus is currently not on earth. But did you admit that? Far from it.

Lol, huxley2. . . you just further weakned your position. If, for the sake of an argument, I were to evaluate your statement, it would be a contradiction to assert that because Jesus is not on earth, therefore He could not have appeared to anyone! What harrumph it would be on my part!

While some Christians may find it hard to believe the possibility of Jesus walking on anyone's street, it is not so for me. Even though He is positionally in heaven, my worldview based on the Bible does not argue that it is impossible for Him to appear to anyone on earth. There are many verses that show the possibility of His appearing to people on earth - independent of what anyone (myself included); so to have arrived at your idea about my reaction is unnecessary. Whether or not I reject it does not make your claim a "false" one - the validity of your claim is not dependent on my personal experience or the lack thereof.

huxley2:
This is what you said:

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

What the hell was that? Is there an sense in that comment at all? Some honesty would go a long way, my dear.

I have been honest all along with you - your lack of astute and careful reading seems to be doing you in. You may not see any sense in that comment and are trying ever so hard to dragoon an answer from me to fit your mold. This is why it does not surprise me that you'd make assumptions that are clearly unfounded about 'Jesus is currently not on earth' should therefore mean by default that I have to reject all claims to have seen Him appearing to anyone! Do you take time to reason objectively or merely trying to test-drive your own presumptions?

huxley2:
Ok, let me try another tacts. Suposing I said to you:

Light particles (photons) from the sun were detected in a mine that is 2km deep.

Would would be minded to (initially) accept or reject this claim and why? How would you arrive at any decision you take?

Edit:

I don't know if resorting to such tact is helping the discussion. Perhaps it may be more helpful to state precisely where you're going.

For the latest above, I would still arrive at any inference in the same way as discussed previously - such an asssertion would be considered independent of anyone's worldview. Whether or not anyone peremptorily rejects or affirms it, is not the issue.

I may come back later in the p.m. to see developments in the thread - if not, then tomorrow.

huxley2:
Exactly, that is the manner of your argumentation. You state and adhoc fact, and you claim that it MUST be so, because you have stated it.

Nice try, but let's see how strong your point is. _{I had a funny feeling that was precisely where you were going.}

huxley2:
Just look at your last but one post.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

Was that an ad hoc "fact" (and what's the relationship between "ad hoc" and "fact"?

Anyhow, after making the statement, I asked "Why" and also gave my reasons:
Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".
Unless you have a way of showing that was either "ad hoc" and not a "fact" (which do not mean the same), or it was indeed a "fact" and not "ad hoc", I don't see what point you've made. The basic assumption is not carried on my say-so and thus "MUST" be so. Do you feel that FALSIFIABILITY is dependent on one's worldview, huxley2?

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that

And what was wrong in showing the very same thing that even YOU had observed along the same lines? 

huxley2:
I have managed to demonstrated that your a a man.

How?

@huxley2,

huxley2:
OK, let me start with this:

Welcome, anytime.

huxley2:
Before, I start, let me say that I agree with the main thrust of the comment, although I would have worded it differently to make it more precise.

There's no need to word it differently - because it is self-defeating. Why? Because I already made clear that "empirical verification and falsifiability have nothing to do with anyone's worldviews or belief system".

huxley2:
I put it to you that everybody does this - you do that, atheist, theists, scientist, etc, etc. Ignoring the few loose words, what is wrong with that comment?

Apart from showing what was wrong with that comment (as above), I also recognize that everybody argues in that manner. We all do this - and that point was well carried in my statement discussing fallacious logicum earlier that:[list]

The funny thing is that we all use this type of logic in common debates - Christians against Muslims; atheists against theists; democrats against republicans; liberals against conservatives; etc

[/list]

huxley2:
Supposing I said the following to you:

I have just seen Jesus walking on the street past my front door.

Would you accept this as true or false and how you came to your conclusion? How is that different from the comment above.

It is different from the above because that is a statement that has not materialized into an argument. If I were to then take it as an argument, I would first have to ask if it was "constructed along the lines" of the same weakness I observed earlier - basically, just because I have not experienced 'Jesus walking on the street past my front door' does not make your claim a "false" or an "impossible" one. Nor can I say that it is "true" - and independent of anyone's worldview(s) (mine included), your claim stands on its own merit and not on whether or not you're an atheist or I am a Christian theist.

huxley2:
Now supposing I were to say instead;

I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart.

Would you accept that as true or false and how did you go about arrive at your decision?

Again, the same thing as in my reply just above. In real terms, neither of us has seen a man survive a year without a heart; at best, we could only make assumptions on the "norms" that people cannot survive without a functional heart. Taking that as our preconceived assumption (which is not unfounded), we progress to look at our immediate world through the scope of that concept.

Now, just imagine that the statement "I have just seen a man survive unaided for 1 year without a heart" then becomes an argument for informed deductions? Someone comes along and makes another statement:

     'Well, I know of someone who has survived without a heart for several months.'

Ordinarily, we might start out asking all sorts of questions; but the immediate reaction of some of us would be to bellow: "impossible!" Over and against such a reaction would be the simple questions:

       ~  How?

       ~  Who?

       ~  Where?

But the fellow calmly points us to reports such as these:

       US teen lives 118 days without heart

                   or -

        American Teenager Survives 4 Months Without Heart  (Medical News Today)


The basic thing here is that neither you, nor I nor even the gentleman who reported it to us were at the scene to witness the event for ourselves. But whatever our worldviews or preconceptions, it would not affect the report in any degree as to the fact that such even occured. I hope this helps?

skyone:
However since they seems to disbelief in God and anything per se tell me how can these confused set of people would want to belief in velocity or gravity. Lets start from here

Lol, okay. . . this is where I take a back seat. Enjoy.

[quote author=m_nwankwo link=topic=282213.msg4018664#msg4018664 date=1244815333]Why do most people feel disappointed or even embittered when another human being decides to leave a church, religion, movement or sect? Why do most people feel disappointed when another human being converts from one church to another, from one religon to another or even from theism to atheism and vice versa?[/quote]There is no such thing as converting from one church to another; and we don't read that the OP has "decided to leave" Christianity. Besides, I don't know where you read the idea of being embittered into this?

huxley2:
Thanks for giving me the opportunity. No, atheism is NOT science.

And that is my final position.( On this one, I am dogmatic ).

On that one, I am MORE dogmatic than you!!  

May I even go one step further to show my hard-line dogmatism? Here:

       No worldview is science

       or, another way to state it is this:

       Science is NOT a worldview!

huxley2:
Can you show me any of the atheists argumenst that is constructed along these lines?

3. Atheistic Logic
To that end, I would not use Christian theism as the basis of my argument, since the basic outlook of many atheistic logic is simply defined in terms of the "need to disprove" the belief of theists. Such atheistic logic was laid bare in my reply to William_C:

        ● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

        ● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

        ● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

Of course, any thinker would immediately see the fallacy in such types of wasteful arguments that only weaken the position of the person using them; and it also reveals the intellectual laziness of such debaters.

Gladly.

Please go back to the very page where you might've copied that from, and you'd see a link that takes you to the relevant page for such an argument. You'll see the link there as -[list]

Such atheistic logic was laid bare in my [size=14pt]reply[/size] to William_C:

[/list]

When you get to the relevant page, you'd read where I quoted William_C in saying that:
[list]

If Christianity is true then those claims should see the light of the day, the fact that I don't see those claims is an evidence against the Christian claims and a very good one.

[/list]

And yet another: in one of wirinet's reply, you find he (or she) had argued:[list]

Let me tell to the process of believing in anything. First you get a piece of information, either directly ( first hand account) or indirectly, you compare the information with your own store of information (what you accept to be possible) and personal experience (belief system). If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system, you take the story as true, but if the information given is either insufficient or contradicts with your own store of experience and stored information, you reject the whole story.

[/list]

Compare:

   (a) 'If the said information agrees largely with your own belief system' =
         then take as 'true';

   (b) 'if the information given contradicts with your own store of experience' =
         then reject the whole story.

The above is coming from an . . . atheist?


Now huxley2, do these examples (besides several others) not answer your query? Can we move on beyond your needless repetitions, sir?

@huxley2,

I knew somehow na shakara you dey do all this while, that's why I like to draw you in and waste your shakara. Glad to see you had not rest your case and want to be smarted yet again. School up.

huxley2:
You seem to like to use the terminology "logical fallacy", probably thinking that you would impress or intimidate your readers.  But it is obvious that you do NOT know the meaning of this terminology.  The is no such thing as an "atheistic logical fallacy" amongst the class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies.  Of course, you are welcome to introduce a new logical fallacy if non of the existing ones quite address the issue you are addressing.

if anyone was intimidated, it should clearly read: you. I clearly explained what I meant, and also pointed it out as a reminder when it was obvious that some like you probably didn't even take a good look. From all points considered, your complaint here is rather comical, for it should be clear I used "atheistic" as a qualifier (adjectivally) rather than giving an encyclopedia quote. If you had a clue about the "class of formally recognised set of logical fallacies", you'd not have been making the same repetitious arguments that go nowhere.

huxley2:
Can you define what an "atheistic logical fallacy" is, and why it fails to meet the rules of logic?

I just explained myself . . AGAIN . .  above.

huxley2:
To further show just how ignorant you are, let me give you Dawkin's position, as describe in his book, The God Delusion. He defines a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 being Absolute certainty that there is a God and 7 Absolute certainty that there is no God, Pages 50 and 51.

Oh amuse me the more. You obviously are as ignorant as your pretences. Is his own position any less dogmatic? So, what am I to do with his arbitrary scale?

huxley2:
He defines himself as being on level 6, which means "Very Low Probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'"

That is as dogmatic, huxley2. Someone who does not know would truly live his life as one who is not sure - more correctly an agnostic, not a "de facto atheist". An agnostic is not one that wants to push his dogmatism against theism; and I'm really sorry you're making matters worse for your own arguments. I hope you'd stand to defend his "de facto atheism" when I point you to his unintellectual crap?

huxley2:
Does this sound to you like a dogmatist?    I would have been surprise but I have come to learn that Your Ignorance knows no bounds, but as a result of your religiously derived denightedness seek to malign the character of people and/or misrepresent them.

I entertained you thus far on the assumption that you might surprise me with a spark of your pretended intelligence - I was wrong. If you only understood yourself, you probably would have made it easier for others to discuss with you. I don't do prisoners, huxley2, and i've said earlier on that my response would be a no-nonsense approach when you guys deviate from what is being discussed to unnecessary distractions.

skyone:
Pilgrim,

Noetic is typical Chinese man i think is conning us and i'm now suspecting him, you be on a watch on his next post. In fact that's how Mr Huxley started before he finally got confused.

Okay. Lol. . . if you say so.

huxley2:
I gave given you the various a priori arguments for atheism (or against theism).  Non of these is a PROVE for the non-existence of god, but they are evidence, when taken collectively makes the case for the Judeo-Christian conceptualisation of God improbable.

Improbable is not the same thing as a categorical "there is NO God". Such semantics do not "PROVE" anything for your own atheism nor any one else's.

huxley2:
I should really rest my case here as there no point debating with a ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST as you declare yourself to be.  I don't know of any atheist who will not change their position upon being given uncontrovertible evidence for God.

You have not given me that "uncontrovertible evidence for God" - you bring it forth, rather than using the usual atheistic logical fallacy to adduce "proof" for scoring cheap. I remain as dogmatic as Dawkins et al and owe no one any apology. You never considered atheists who are as dogmatic, but you have problems with a theist being equally dogmatic. Please amuse me more.

huxley2:
If you know of any, please I would like to see what they said.  Here are some of the comments that I know some prominent atheist have made, which for them would prove uncontrovertibly that there is a god and they would change their position.

1)  If bad things only happen to bad people. (May have been Victor Stenger or Sam Harris)

Don't you see the crass in these cheap new atheist arguemnts? How does bad things happening to bad people "prove" either way anything for atheism or theism? This is the funny thing about you guys - you circulate other unintellectual atheistic clichés and end up making yourselve the victims of other people's arguments.

huxley2:
2)  If there was a loud voice from the sky declaring that he was god. (I think this was Christ Hitchens)

Yeah, I know that one. Already self-defeating - for typically, such atheists having run out of steam would make some conclusive-bias upon which they would sit cozy and not bulge if someone presents observable evidence for the supernatural. It's like a self blindfolded chap who refuses to take the blindfold off and screams: "if there is no light penetrating my blindfold, I refuse to believe in any alight at all!"  Don't make me laugh hard, huxley2. You're not scoring cheap, you hear? I knew all these logical fallacies are typical of many atheists, and that's why I summarised such self-defeating arguements in three points:

       ● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

       ● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

       ● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

Lol, you guys never cease to amaze me in confirming your simplistic atheistic logical fallacies.  The remarkable thing is that you confirm such fallacies repeatedly and consistently!

huxley2:
3)  If he see a large deposit in his bank account (Woody Allen, slight tongue-in-cheek)

Lol, as above! Three points again:

       ● I don't see something - therefore that is "evidence" it does not exist

       ● Something does not turn out my way - therefore that is "evidence" it's not possible

       ● I reject the arguments of some people - therefore that is "evidence" for my disbelief

huxley2:
There are many more but I cannot think of who or what they said right now.  My position is closer to 1) above.

Like I said: "3. we may allow any atheist to choose what best describes his/her worldview". I respect your position, huxley2 - and would allow you to hold whatever you're closest to. However, that in itself does not predispose any atheist to assume his worldview has any substance in itself - especially since we started out with the premise you identified of a "need to disprove" other people's belief.

huxley2:
There is no point in debating an ABSOLUTE DOGMATIST like yourself, for absolute dogmatist is the pinnacle of benightedness.  I am glad you have admitted to your dogmatist.

I rest my case.

I make no apologies for my position, because I don't see the dogmatism of some other atheists any better. Nor have you provided any such grounds for me to reconsider my position - which would make me a victim of your own fallacy. Sorry, I'm not that gullible. It's pure comedy to assume that I would yield my grounds on the fallacy of your mere hypothesis - wait, and your wait will be long and hard!

toneyb:
Are you running round a circle? Didn't you just tell me a while ago that there are atheist that believe in the supernatural?

You give me more reasons to believe you never read this thread at all. I drew my premise for engaging in thos discussion from what atheists argue by themselves. Many atheists are unaware that some atheists believe in the very thing that atheism rejects: the supernatural. What that means for them, I have also explained and given examples. Others, like huxley2 who does not believe in the supernatural, has been genial enough to acknowledge that he's aware some atheists believe in the superntural. The question is: why do these atheists believe in the superntural rather than remain in their position of rejecting any and everything that atheism rejects? I'm not unaware of these issues; and have shown that many typical atheis websites reject (if not deny) any belief in the supernatural. How does that turn you spinning on the same spot?

toneyb:
Are really serious?

What troubles you about the highlighted in my quote?

toneyb:
Are really serious? Are you having a dichotomy between the supernatural and a particular god say the bible God? What are you defending here pilgrim 1?

One thing, as already observed: the very thing that atheism unintellectually rejects out-of-hand - the supernatural.

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4017801#msg4017801 date=1244805241]Pilgrim 2000 years after Jesus was iced and the 'church' is still striving towards perfection. . .milleniums after the so called helper/Holy Spirit you're still at 'be ye'. Guess he's not doing his job well. . .[/quote]Complaining is not the same thing as discussing. Is that the best shot you can produce for what I pointed out?

[quote author=Tùdor link=topic=282213.msg4017801#msg4017801 date=1244805241]We're constantly told the end time is near. The groom (Jesus) will come for his bride (the church) yet she's not perfect. I even read where a pastor(i think rebecca brown) saw a vision where the minuite hand of the end-time clock was at 1min to twelve (what a load of crap) what has the church been doing for the past 23 hours?
You hypocrites should focus on perfecting your church instead of heckling muslims and atheists into your imperfect body. The groom beckons on thee. . . .[/quote]You demonstrate your hypocrisy to such great levels. Rebecca Brown's ideas are not the same thing with what anyone understands from Scripture. I'm not heckling atheists, and do not enter a discussion with them with the sort of self-defeating arrogance that tends to complaints such as in yours. At any rate, I've always looked for a discussion - if you can afford that, good; if not, no wahala.