₦airaland Forum

Geovanni412:
My issue is with the bolded as regards memory

What can we say about boxers, like Prichard Colon that suffer brain damage and can't remember a thing?

Are they no longer in existence even though they are alive?

Kindly clarify

Thanks 4 your response.
He no longer exists as an individual. There is no longer a "self". He is simply part of the mass consciousness. That's why people like Sam Harris say that individuality is an illusion of memory - in reality there's only one mass consciousness.

LordReed:
But some how declaring you know there is an intelligent designer somewhere is better. LoLz. SMH.

I never said tha and I'd never say that. I only said that certain things (like nature's correlation with math and theoretical Physics) are pointers to there being some sort of design to the universe

budaatum:
I don't agree with Sam Harris whom I don't share a religion with, and I definitely don't agree with Descartes who thinks therefore exists.

LordReed:
At least the "nothing" I know is way more that the shit you claim to know.

HellVictorinho6:
But we dont even have to be sure of the nature in order to be sure that something exists

JessicaRabbit:
We don't exist in a thought experiment. We live in a world brimming with social constructs, cultural influences, and yes, even a dash of good old-fashioned confirmation bias. To suggest a level playing field for belief formation is simply ahistorical. Remember the Crusades? The Inquisition? Religious persecution?

Pardon my tagging everybody but these are crucial points to get accross because most people think they are jokes (I'll later reply other mentions BTW):
1) Why atheism that says God does not exist is a religion (and a stupid one at that IMHO), and 2) Why our greatest thinkers are right when they say we don't know anything.

Here's the TRUTH:
You find yourself in this reality. You don't AT ALL know what it is. You don't know if it's an illusion (like Einstein thinks), a matrix, a simulation, a hallucination, a dream, a heaven, a hell, if you have free will in it or you just have illusion of free will, if the reality is being manipulated, if you're being manipulated, where your thoughts come from, whether you are the one actually thinking them, what thinking actually is, where your dreams come from, whether there is a "you" at all (atheist Sam Harris says there is not), wether things are predetermined (as Einstein thought), etc., etc.. All you know is that there seem to be things going on and you seem to be in them {or they seem to be in you - to the extent there is a "you"}
Bottom line: YOU DON'T HAVE THE FOGGIEST IDEA WHAT THIS IS or what is truly going on!
You see water, air, etc. You don't know what they are or why they're in those particular forms.
To compound all that, you find out you are practically blind (you see 0.003% of light), that you don't know what 95% of stuff around you is, that you only perceive 4 dimensions out of hundreds, and that on a cosmic scale (if the universe were shrunk to size of earth) your earth won't be visible even with the strongest microscope!

Please answer truthfully, is someone with these attributes qualified to have an opinion as to whether God exists??!!

Being an atheist is like being sure of the answer to the question: X+5=?, without knowing AT ALL what X is, wether X is even a number at all or a goat! It is also why our greatest thinkers are right when they say we don't know anything - if you don't know what X is, you don't know anything!

**BTW Sam Harris was right but there is no great insight about what he said. It is simple common sense:
If you don't believe there is a supernatural (as you said you don't budaatum) then you must agree that the "self", the individual person, doesn’t exist - it is an illusion of accumulated memory. If your memory is wiped, "you" seizes to exit TOTALLY. If another person's memory is put in that body, that person becomes "you". Same applies to a dog or anything else. You are your accumulated memory, NOTHING ELSE! Without memory the individual, the "self", does not exist!

FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022, LordReed, Jaephoenix, JessicaRabbit, Knownunknown, DeepSight, BBIA HellVictorinho6, SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist, FRANCISTOWN, SIRTee15, Aemmyjah, TheSourcerer,
Busybrain2233, 1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack,
Botragelad, isan, MaxInDHouse, Fourthpredator,
seun, hopefullandlord, bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2,  kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001, Maynthemayn

LordReed:
LoLz! Keep dreaming of beating me, it is good to have aspirations.

All those QED's are there for all to see
The last one was when you said that you never said "natural selection doesn't select anything". I produced two places where you said exactly that, and you started making dumb eccuses!😆

HellVictorinho6:
Depends on what u mean by nature of xyz

Go with whatever you think it means, let's see where you going

JessicaRabbit:
The whole "all things being equal" argument is fantastical at best. People don't choose their beliefs in a vacuum. Upbringing, cultural influences, personal experiences etc. all play a role. But even in a hypothetical world, "benefits" are subjective! Your version of a "beneficial" life might involve church socials and shared beliefs, while mine might involve the freedom to explore ideas without theological constraints. There's no one-size-fits-all answer. At the very least, I'm pleased that you've finally come out to declare the subjectivity of life. That has been my point all along! That's why claiming everyone experiences the divine the same way, or that a specific religion is universally "beneficial", is a bit of a stretch. My reality involves finding meaning through personal growth, scientific discovery, and human connection - all perfectly fulfilling pursuits that don't require a deity.

You know what? Why don't you go ahead and tell me, what aspects of religion you find most beneficial? Maybe I can share my perspective on how I find similar fulfillment without resorting to faith. Mutual understanding is far more productive than this game of logical whack-a-mole we seem to be playing.

Good to have you back. Your erudite submissions add to the level of the discussion.
Well, without "all things being equal" we can't have a discussion because, as I pointed out, it's like we all live in different realities though we physically occupy the same world. There are people who speak with God everyday and people who see shape-shifting demons everyday. Then there are people who are 100% sure a supernatural doesn't exist. The totally weird thing is that BOTH may be right!

Respectfully, you're trying to play a fast one. I am the one who has always said that life is totally subjective - that what exists for one person may not exist for another.
As for what aspects of religion are beneficial, they are rather obvious. Just believing God is on your side and you can't fail is better than going it "alone". But the real point is that you can at same time have ALL there is in atheism without the stigma and "lonliness" and isolation from the social mainstream (speaking of the "human connection" you talked about).
You're right, mutual understanding is far more productive. Though "logical whack-a-mole" can be a lot of fun too. I'll admit I enjoy beating up LordReed . I'm truly amazed I've won EVERY SINGLE discussion I've had with him. They always end with me saying "QED"!

LordReed:
Nope it's from their BLOG. And is a reprint from an article in a a NON SCIENTIFIC publication. You should ask yourself why there is no peer reviewed paper after all these years.

You have started your ridiculousness again. Why are you fixated on the word "blog"? What has that to do with anything?? Below is the end of the article and who wrote it!

HellVictorinho6:
There are whatevers/whoevers indefinitely

What I can say for sure is that something exists since there seems to be something like what we call "thinking" going on. Now the nature of that something that exists I'm not sure about

budaatum:
So, you that doesn't "actually exist" will not feel pain but your brain that does exist will feel pain?

Can you explain how your brain exists without you please, such that it will feel the pain that you don't feel?

And note that I do wonder at your fudge thinking that seems to suggest that you that doesn't actually exist can dream and feel pain.

Oh we assumed a lot for the sake of conversation. We not only assumed I exist, we assumed the physical universe exists and we assumed I actually have a hand and that there is a hammer. Lots of HUGE assumptions, just like Descartes who made the huge leap from existence of thinking to he himself existing - "Cogito..."
In reality even your fellow atheist, Sam Harris, says the individual does not exist (see below). Since u r of same religion, do you agree with him?

LordReed:
Dumdum does it not occur to you that if this was a simulation that the programmers could simulate any speed they want? Why would the simulation be limited by the processor for crying out loud. Modern processors can simulate faster than light speeds for Andromeda's sake.

Also Dumdum what makes you think the so called simulation programmers are not capable of producing increasingly more powerful processors? Failure to think I swear.

See below. This is from physics department of a university, NOT the usual nonsense you write from top of your head and later try to save face about

budaatum:
My brain is never disconnected, and I am asking you to perform the experiment with your brain, that you claim doesn't actually exist, intact please.

You can try the disconnected brain version afterwards.

Point is, same way you could be made to NOT feel "pain" that is there, you can also be made to feel pain that is not there. There is no such thing as pain independent of your brain - whatever your brain registers as pain is pain.
Hence if you did this in a dream you'd also feel pain. Pain has nothing to do.with your habd but your brain

budaatum:
I know my Lord exists. You'll be sure too once you bother to understand what existence means and how to ascertain whether beings and things exist or not.

Funny guy. Who's your Lord as an atheist?

HellVictorinho6:
No universe exists

Whether

Tangible or not


But we arent minds


We just call what we express by intention or what we intend to express MIND

You could be right. We have no way of knowing what this truly is. We could easily be made to think there is absolutely a universe when there is no universe at all

budaatum:
Does he know how to read?

Surely, that's something?

He has to first exist to be reading, and we are not sure he exists. Just because there seems to be something like reading going on doesn't mean he exists

LordReed:
I said the reason diabetes survives is because the trait for susceptibility continues to be propagated and that diabetic people do not die before they can reproduce. Don't twist my words dumdum.

I don't want to call u a liar but you said it for several pages - that the ONLY reason diabetes survives is because diabetics reproduce!

LordReed:
They didn't become carnivores or omnivores dumdum, they've always been carnivores or omnivores.

Thus is NOT true. Man was a vegetarian for a long time. Why didn't goats follow suit?

LordReed:
I don't get embarrassed like you do cos I'm not a phony like you. I ought to have been writing nature not natural selection, that's why I was surprised you said I wrote natural selection. The statement should therefore be NATURE does not select anything.
.

Soo,
Q E D. (as usual!)

(Truly amazing how you always lose EVERY TIME we argue!)

LordReed:
Dumdum just says it as if it is true. LoLz. Na wa. They really need to teach critical thinking in school so that people stop falling mugu to nonsense. LoLz.

If you were at all capable of critical thinking you'd have realized long ago (like most of our geniuses) that you don’t know anything

budaatum:
While I am not particularly in the loop of your uncivil conversation with others, I am not out of the loop of the conversation that I am having with you.

You jumped into my conversation with the uncivil (u r right) Reed and the way you were talking let me know you did not know what it was all about

budaatum:
So, no selection whatsoever, right? Just a matter of the animals desire and ability to find food or die.

Can you see why it's absurd to now claim that animal was selected to live by a selector?

LordReed:
LoLz. Oh how I do love thee budaatum. Bwahahahahaha!

I.just saw this. You people are.RIDICULOUS!!
THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS CALLED NATURAL SELECTION!!!
Who but Reed kept harping on a selector??

budaatum:
Place your hand that doesn't actually exist upon a table that doesn't actually exist and hit it hard with a hammer that doesn't actually exist then come and tell me that whatever you feel doesn't actually exist please.

Just so you know, this is Philosophy 101. When you advance small you'd get to meet the likes of Heidegger.

I strongly suggest you learn more instead of assuming everyone knows nothing like you.

I'm NOT assuming. I KNOW you don't know ANYTHING - like all humans!
Please tell us what will happen if you do same thing but your brain is disconnected from your hand Or in a dream OR when hypnotized you can't feel pain OR when under heavy pain killer

budaatum:
This is somewhat true. But with history full of laws that humans have abandoned, we must ask ourselves how well we do discover.

Newton’s Law of Gravity was revised by Einstein. Another is Bode's Law that we don't mention anymore.


This is true. But as far as laws are concerned, as in our human understanding of things, that changes constantly as we learn and know more.

We often see this in technology. There was a time when Nigeria had the technology for only 64,000 landlines, but technological changes due to human understanding has put almost 2 phones in every Nigerian's hands.


I do like this part. Now apply it to nature and laws.

We ask 'why', and the search for answers increases our human understanding.

Now, and this applies more to you Aemmyjah.
If I stopped asking 'why', and conclude "because God", would you say I'm lazy and ignorant and haven't bothered to learn so that I may know?

Even if I did say "because God", I should still ask Who, What, Where, When, Why and How regarding this supposed God itself, just as Jesus is written to have taught, or at least as some might conclude from his teaching.

Point is, it is incumbent upon us to theorize as to WHY the laws suddenly change!
Newton's laws are still valid except when applied near what we're discussing - speed of light!

Thats NOT what I'm discussing with Reed - he is saying it is normal the speed of light be the speed limit in the universe and he doesn't see anything strange about it at all

LordReed:
Dude the laws of nature we talk about are descriptive not prescriptive. We are describing the universe not telling the universe how it must behave. Gosh how are you so stubbornly ignorant?!

My friend you sound so stubbornly obtuse. If when you get to Tokyo you find that water flows uphill, human instinct is to find out WHY, not say you can't tell nature what to do. Theorizing and trying to find out as to why an exception is there is NOT telling nature what to do. Hope you can get that through your (I assume) fairly thick skull!

HellVictorinho6:
I say theres no universe, theres nonsense. We are into more than madness or greater madness, life is crazy, death cant fix it, whether or not i make it, damn it!

It's extremely possible the tangible universe doesn't actually exist and we're all just minds

budaatum:
But it does! And only fools will disregard reality and insist on sticking with should or shouldn't.

Laws are created by humans who don't always have all the information before them, and that is why we and our laws are not rigid.

An example is, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Though I don't think you'd understand it as a 'law', because it doesn't sound like one.

That was as far as humans of the day and time were capable of understanding, but today we see and understand better such that some claim there was a big bang when God supposedly said "let there be light".

Think of "child" below to mean the entire human race over time, and you might see that we evolve into adults.

budaatum:
I do love that you said "there ought be".

It suggests you are aware that you can increase energy without increasing acceleration.

You are kind of out of the loop. I don't think you've been following. The discussion is about how the arbitrary cosmic speed limit of speed of light indicates we're in a simulation and it's likely an aspect of the processor speed

LordReed:
LMFAO! O my fucking Andromeda! Who cares what you think the universe should be like? These are the properties of the universe, your incredulity means nothing. You are just a phony I swear. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

budaatum:
But it does! And only fools will disregard reality and insist on sticking with should or shouldn't.

Laws are created by humans who don't always have all the information before them, and that is why we and our laws are not rigid.

An example is, "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". Though I don't think you'd understand it as a 'law', because it doesn't sound like one.

That was as far as humans of the day and time were capable of understanding, but today we see and understand better such that some claim there was a big bang when God supposedly said "let there be light".

Think of "child" below to mean the entire human race over time, and you might see that we evolve into adults.

**The laws of Physics are NOT created by humans. Discovered not created!

Listen, in this our reality things don't suddenly change for no reason, or suddenly stop or start for no reason. When something starts acting abnormally we don't just gloss it over as just the way things are. We first acknowledge it is abnormal then look for possible reasons why the exception. Same applies to the relatively low speed of light. We ask ourselves WHY laws should suddenly change when you approach that speed!

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! F = ma only applies at non-relativistic speeds. Oh dear oh dear once again just repeating what you obviously don't understand. LMFAO!

Exactly. And it SHOULDN'T!! Laws shouldn't change simply because you're approaching a given speed!!!

LordReed:
Oh you want to see comments do you. LoLz.

My buddy Reed, really, gotta be something wrong.
I posted a comment from a scientist and you are posting reddit gibberish! And even in your post it says this below.
Lots of serious scientists think it is very likely we live in a simulation. Einstein has deeper insight than most scientists. He came to the same conclusion Khan came to in the article (if you read the article) - that there is someone(s) pulling the strings!

LordReed:
Dumdum post where I wrote Natural selection does not select anything.

LMAO! Dumdum do you the meaning of carnivorous and omnivorous? Look them up if you don't.

We know plenty enough to understand what evolution and natural selection are but dummies like you continue to claim what you don't understand or can defend with evidence.

Who posted the underlineds below? Your wife?
(😅When will you stop embarrassing yourself??)

Question is how and why did they become carnivores, omnivores, etc.

You understand, yet you said only reason diabetes survive is because diabetics reproduce!

LordReed:
LoLz. Still repeating the obvious fact that he published it on April Fool's day to catch idiot's like you mugu. Bwahahahahaha!

My good friend Reed you really ought seriously look at the possibility there's something not quite right.
You are the ONLY one who's talking about April 1st. Do you think this Khan guy decides when articles he submits are published? See someone below commenting on the piece

LordReed:
This is not the question I am asking you. You made a claim I am ask you to provide evidence for your claim. Your incredulity at light's property is not evidence of your claim.

Now again can you tell me what property of the universe would allow there to be unlimited speed.

My good but obtuse friend, do you see anywhere below where it says you can increase energy without increasing acceleration??
As long there is increase in energy there ought be increase in speed forever. Do you get it now?

budaatum:
Guess what you can't fathom is what the statement means to you. So I'll let you work on figuring it out some.

The statement is what is called pure nonsense. Animals who can't get food, die! There is no deep philosophy about it