₦airaland Forum

FxMasterz:
I.do.not presume to know everything about you. All I said are inferences drawn from conversations with you. You speak highly of Marduk. That may not bot translate to a belief in him but majority of what I said about are true.

You even believe that spirit wives and spirit husbands are good for everyone. Isn't it? I need to call Triplechoice attention to this too. Everything about your religious life is just muddled up.

Sorry FX, but I can't recall ever talking "highly of Marduk and Tiamat" at all, and on searching I found me saying the below, which I don't think is "highly", though your 'high' might be my low.

I also looked up "spirit wives and spirit husbands" and budaatum too and can not find where I spoke about any such nonsense.

So please provide the evidence you base your so called inferences on so Triplechoice's and every one elses attention can be called to it and can infer as you have.

Thank you immensely in advance.

budaatum:
Absolutely not! Just as Marduk and Tiamat did not exist yet we learn what we can about and from them.

DeepSight:
+
The whole thing is not worth anyone's time. Surprised at the level of obsession over strangers.

This thread kind of shows its worth some people's time, don't you think?

Its after all not like everyone's time has equal value, it seems to me.

LordReed:
Bwahahahahahaha! My dear budaatum you have been very cheeky. See how they are falling all over themselves to describe you. I hold you responsible. LoLz.

I take full responsibility, my Lord, for not fitting in the boxes some want to fit buda in.

But to be honest, isn't it obvious by the moniker, which is a combination of an Egyptian God and an Indian guru, that buda is not made of ticky tacky?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM8JhvfoqdA

budaatum:
This thread kind of shows its worth some people's time, don't you think?

Its after all not like everyone's time has equal value, it seems to me.

+
Perhaps worth the time of a toad or an ant.

DeepSight:
+
Perhaps worth the time of a toad or an ant.

I'm going, for the sake of it, elevate them higher than rats or toads because I think rats and toads have very different priorities than an interest in anything to do with some insignificant individual called budaatum on a Nigerian forum, and nor do I want to insult rats and toads.

budaatum:
I'm going, for the sake of it, elevate them higher than rats or toads because I think rats and toads have very different priorities than an interest in anything to do with some insignificant individual called budaatum on a Nigerian forum, and nor do I want to insult rats and toads.

+


For clarity, I do not refer to Triplechoice alone.

I refer to you as well.

DeepSight:
+


For clarity, I do not refer to Triplechoice alone.

I refer to you as well.

Oh! Are you saying I should not be worth my own time, and if I do I'm a toad or ant?

Now that would be very interesting indeed, and makes me curious about what you'd call those who spend their own time responding to posts by those they consider a toad or an ant for spending their own toad or ant time on themselves.

Care to tell please?

budaatum:
Oh! Are you saying I should not be worth my own time, and if I do I'm a toad or ant?

Now that would be very interesting indeed, and makes me curious about what you'd call those who spend their own time responding to posts by those they consider a toad or an ant for spending their own toad or ant time on themselves.

Care to tell please?

+
Ah well, if I was not mentioned, I would not even follow the discussion (which I have mostly skipped).

If I were you, I would ignore the conversation entirely.

If I I were triplechoice, I would not bother bringing it up.

End of.

DeepSight:
+
Ah well, if I was not mentioned, I would not even follow the discussion (which I have mostly skipped).

If I were you, I would ignore the conversation entirely.

You are only here because you were mentioned, but consider me a rat or ant when my moniker is the actual thread title?

Now that's something, I dare say, and in fact find it rather odd that you are not a rat or ant for not ignoring your mention and participating in this thread, but think I must be a rat or ant for participating when I am the thread's actual topic. But I guess it might be a case of different rules for you and I or just plain double standardism.

Personally, I do take interest when people start a whole thread about me, and most especially if that thread is created to investigate or accuse me of things. They may have their facts upside down, but I still consider the feedback and views and opinions to be invaluable information about those who provide it.

Take yours for instance. You say you "mostly skipped", and from your limited observation, conclude "rat or ant", which allows me to infer something about you and how you reason, which is just pure gold.

budaatum:
You are only here because you were mentioned, but consider me a rat or ant when my moniker is the actual thread title?

Now that's something, I dare say, and in fact find it rather odd that you are not a rat or ant for not ignoring your mention and participating in this thread, but think I must be a rat or ant for participating when I am the thread's actual topic. But I guess it might be a case of different rules for you and I or just plain double standardism.

Personally, I do take interest when people start a whole thread about me, and most especially if that thread is created to investigate or accuse me of things. They may have their facts upside down, but I still consider the feedback and views and opinions to be invaluable information about those who provide it.

Take yours for instance. You say you "mostly skipped", and from your limited observation, conclude "rat or ant", which allows me to infer something about you and how you reason, which is just pure gold.

+
Abeg me sef be rat and ant.
Good night.

DeepSight:
+
Abeg me sef be rat and ant.
Good night.

I do not agree that you "sef be rat and ant", sorry.

Least that is not my own opinion of you based on the evidence you have presented to me. For I read your monicker and assume you look deep, and take it as advice that I should look deep too.

That's how much power I choose to invest in you, and for such am I full of gratitude to you.

budaatum:
I do not agree that you "sef be rat and ant", sorry.

Least that is not my own opinion of you based on the evidence you have presented to me. For I read your monicker and assume you look deep, and take it as advice that I should look deep too.

That's how much power I choose to invest in you, and for such am I full of gratitude to you.

+
How nice Buda. You have returned my insults with compliments. Now that's Christ-like.
Oya, we can be friends again.

Let revisit our discussion on the existence of God.

DeepSight:
+
How nice Buda. You have returned my insults with compliments. Now that's Christ-like.
Oya, we can be friends again.

Let revisit our discussion on the existence of God.

I always do, or at least try to, return insults with compliments, Deep. Its the turn the other cheek nature of mine.

My opinion is that those who insult are frustrated at not being able to put their points across well enough, and I might have not put mine across in a way that could be understood as intended. Its after all not the case that we can always put our points across as accurately as we intend they be received, as this thread has shown.

Know that I am an atheist, contrary to whatever Triplechoice might have claimed to have proven here. I do not accept that any gods have ever existed, and everything we call god (in all its disguises) is created by us human beings and rightly so, since our knowledge of the universe was limited when gods were being created, and mostly still is.

Also know that I am of the opinion that we are better off for the creation of our gods, though that creation also creates some very bad unintended consequences. If there were no Bible (or Qur'an etc), we humans might be without any software, and would be like computers without an operating system. Those books if read as you suggested, "from start to end", and not merely dipping all over the place like church reading encourages, make us better human beings, and we'd be brutes without them, is my opinion.

You mentioned the Bible justifying slavery in another thread, and I'd have gone further and claimed the story of Adam and Eve was a creation of the concept of slavery, though I know well enough that slavery predates the Bible.

On the flip side however is intelligent non-believing Eve checking (doing deep sight) with her own senses to find if true that she would die if she ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to see if it would truly kill her, only to find it pleasing to the eye and good for gaining wisdom. And it empowered her to free herself and that naked ignorant believing Adam from slavery, where they are written to have gone on to be self employed and populated the entire earth, we read.

Now, I personally think that from the above, I'd be accused of satan worship, because I am implying that “God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. But I guess sights are not yet deep enough for that to be seen, or people are just being too kind to budaatum.

budaatum:
I always do, or at least try to, return insults with compliments, Deep. Its the turn the other cheek nature of mine.

My opinion is that those who insult are frustrated at not being able to put their points across well enough, and I might have not put mine across in a way that could be understood as intended. Its after all not the case that we can always put our points across as accurately as we intend they be received, as this thread has shown.

Know that I am an atheist, contrary to whatever Triplechoice might have claimed to have proven here. I do not accept that any gods have ever existed, and everything we call god (in all its disguises) is created by us human beings and rightly so, since our knowledge of the universe was limited when gods were being created, and mostly still is.

Also know that I am of the opinion that we are better off for the creation of our gods, though that creation also creates some very bad unintended consequences. If there were no Bible (or Qur'an etc), we humans might be without any software, and would be like computers without an operating system. Those books if read as you suggested, "from start to end", and not merely dipping all over the place like church reading encourages, make us better human beings, and we'd be brutes without them, is my opinion.

You mentioned the Bible justifying slavery in another thread, and I'd have gone further and claimed the story of Adam and Eve was a creation of the concept of slavery, though I know well enough that slavery predates the Bible.

On the flip side however is intelligent non-believing Eve checking (doing deep sight) with her own senses to find if true that she would die if she ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to see if it would truly kill her, only to find it pleasing to the eye and good for gaining wisdom. And it empowered her to free herself and that naked ignorant believing Adam from slavery, where they are written to have gone on to be self employed and populated the entire earth, we read.

Now, I personally think that from the above, I'd be accused of satan worship, because I am implying that “God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. But I guess sights are not yet deep enough for that to be seen, or people are just being too kind to budaatum.

+
For starters, you already agreed that there is a cause of reality/ the universe.
So if I tell you that my definition of God is simply that uncaused cause. That permanent and necessary factor.

Would you say such does not exist?

DeepSight:
+
For starters, you already agreed that there is a cause of reality/ the universe.
So if I tell you that my definition of God is simply that uncaused cause. That permanent and necessary factor.

Would you say such does not exist?

When I say "cause", I mean it as a thing that makes things happen. And in my own opinion, nothing happens without a cause. Gods, however, must be defined as you have here, as an "uncaused cause", which is not a possibility to my atheistic mind. An atheist's usual retort is, even God must have a cause. And I have stated that that cause of the gods is we humans who create gods to explain things we have no knowledge of what caused it, just as you are doing here. It is like claiming the cause of the universe was a big bang, without addressing the fact that something big must have existed to go bang, sing bangs are often caused by something.

A more appropriate and honest response when we do not know what caused a thing is to simply say, we don't know, instead of inserting an uncaused god into the gap of our ignorance. We are after all talking about a cause that happened like 13 billion years ago, when we know that our knowledge gets very shaky and speculative after like 200,000 years ago, if not 20,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

As far as I am concerned, your "uncaused cause" God has a cause, as in gods have creators. And those creators and causes of the gods are we humans. It is the reason there are so many gods, for all gods are created in the image of we humans who create gods in our own image and according to our own understanding.

The below is the problem of infinite regression that is being avoided by an "uncaused cause" instead of admitting one just doesn't know what caused a thing to happen or be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

Deepsight, please know that an uncaused cause is not a new concept. Aristotle called it an Unmoved mover.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unmoved_mover

And it is named Brahman in Hinduism, just as it is Yahweh in Judaism.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zrf6pbk/revision/

budaatum:
When I say "cause", I mean it as a thing that makes things happen. And in my own opinion, nothing happens without a cause. Gods, however, must be defined as you have here, as an "uncaused cause", which is not a possibility to my atheistic mind. An atheist's usual retort is, even God must have a cause. And I have stated that that cause of the gods is we humans who create gods to explain things we have no knowledge of what caused it, just as you are doing here. It is like claiming the cause of the universe was a big bang, without addressing the fact that something big must have existed to go bang, sing bangs are often caused by something.

A more appropriate and honest response when we do not know what caused a thing is to simply say, we don't know, instead of inserting an uncaused god into the gap of our ignorance. We are after all talking about a cause that happened like 13 billion years ago, when we know that our knowledge gets very shaky and speculative after like 200,000 years ago, if not 20,000 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

As far as I am concerned, your "uncaused cause" God has a cause, as in gods have creators. And those creators and causes of the gods are we humans. It is the reason there are so many gods, for all gods are created in the image of we humans who create gods in our own image and according to our own understanding.

The below is the problem of infinite regression that is being avoided by an "uncaused cause" instead of admitting one just doesn't know what caused a thing to happen or be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down

+
All this is elementary. Will respond later.

FxMasterz:
Thanks for your attempt to expose budaatum but I think you misunderstood him. I also once did. When I first started interacting with him, I thought he is an atheist. Later I found out he's not one.

Budaatum is not deliberately dishonest. He's just very confused. As a result, you could get confused about him because he dishes out his confusions very frequently. That's why Maxindhouse told someone that any conversation with budaatum is one chance.

Thank you for your response, Fxmasterz. I understand why you perceive it as confusion, and many others have been misled by that same impression. However , if you had access to the same information I have about him and the group he belongs to , you would see that his numerous disguises are not sign of confusion, but the very evidence of his affiliation.

His behaviour aligns perfectly with the documented culture of groups like Amorc, which instruct members to conceal their affiliation. The use of disguises and misdirection is a feature of their practice,not a bug. The confusion he creates is a deliberate tactic to make it difficult for anyone to pin him down..

For, instance, if you accuse him of being a secret member of Amorc, he will deflect by asking why you don't accuse him of being a Christian since he also quotes and interpret the Bible

If you question his gender he will gaslight you with a line of the like, ,"So you want to look under my skirt to find out"?, an absurd and illogical response on a faceless forum designed to shame you into silence. It is like someone here claiming to own a Ferrari and living in a mansion, then accusing you of wanting to rob them when you express doubt

The duplicity which I observed in most of their members was what put me off when I was to join them long ago as a teenager. Someone is a member of Amorc, Freemasonry,, Ogboni,voodoist and still goes to church to receive holy communion. Yes, this is what they are known for.

Most of their members hide themselves effectively by pretending to be Christians, especially in a society like ours, where groups like Amorc and the Ogboni are widely regarded as satanic cults. You will often find them in orthodox churches like the catholic church, having gone through the full process of baptism and communion. Some even aspire to the position of a priest in the church. This is not a conspiracy created by me, it is a verifiable strategy to avoid stigmatization and ostracization

There was once an active member of Amorc on this board, I believe his moniker was Frairmathy, who stated that the major requirement for joining Amorc is a belief in a God. He explained that ,as an initiate, he was also a confirmed Catholic. Is that confusion?

From their perspective, it is not. It is how they are encouraged to operate.

So, Buda' is not confused. The confusion he projects is. the very tool he uses to operate here' undetected. After advertising Amorc to recruit new members and sharing their core doctrinal books, he pivots to interpreting the Bible and Quran to create doubt about his true affiliations. When confronted, he defends himself by. saying, " I also quote the Bible or Shakespeare, so. what am I?

But if you have seen his past activities, passionately promoting and defending Amorc, you are left by with no doubt about where his allegiance lies.

He can confuse others with his foolery, but not me. If he had not crossed a line in our discussion, his identity wouldn't concern me. He is not the only member of Amorc here. If my goal was to expose them all, I would be doing so constantly.

I appreciate your perspective,but the evidence I have, points decisively to deliberate intellectual dishonesty: posing as a pure atheist to mock others while being a paying member of an esoteric group that teaches a distorted version of. the very concepts he criticizes .

Use this link to visit this thread to see his performance there and come back and tell me if it is the behaviour of a confused person and not that of someone promoting and.defending what they believe in.

https://www.nairaland.com/4793988/mystical-life#72173050

triplechoice:
Use this link to visit this thread to see his performance there and come back and tell me if it is the behaviour of a confused person and not that of someone promoting and.defending what they believe in.

https://www.nairaland.com/4793988/mystical-life#72173050

FxMasterz, I am still patiently awaiting the evidence requested of you please, as I'm sure you wouldn't make wild unfounded accusations like triple does.

Thanks in advance.

https://www.nairaland.com/8566179/appeal-investigate-hidden-evidence-harassment/4#137588089

LordReed:
Bwahahahahahaha! My dear budaatum you have been very cheeky. See how they are falling all over themselves to describe you. I hold you responsible. LoLz.

@Lordreed, let me start by sincerely thanking you once again. Your help in securing the screenshot was invaluable and demonstrated a commitment to getting to the truth,for which I am grateful.

This is why feel I need to address your latest comment. The statement ,"see how they are falling over themselves to describe you", shifts the focus away from the substance of the issue and into a realm of personal drama in favour of the other party.


I had hope you would continue in your role as a neutral judge. A fair judgement would ask why the evidence of "advertising" Amorc was withheld for so long, not celebrate the confusion that withholding it caused. Your comment, while perhaps meant in jest, unfortunately makes light of the very deception that was the heart of the problem.

When we debate, I expect the person on the other side to be genuine. Buda refused to do that. He chose to operate behind a disguise to mock and discredit others. That is the core of the issue.

A truthful person with nothing to hide does not withhold exonerating evidence for two years. A truthful person does not secretly bump a thread to a new location and then stay silent when they are accused of deleting it, all to create confusion. He only produced the "evidence" when he was boxed into a corner in this thread. His actions prove his dishonesty.


My goal here on this thread was never to simply "describe" Budaatum. The core of this matter has always been, and remains, a single, demonstrable act of intellectual dishonesty: the deliberate suppression of evidence for two years, only admitting to it when cornered. This is a matter of a action and principle, not an obsession with his online personality.

But to now make a statement that implicitly excuses the dishonesty at the core of this quarrel is, itself taking a side. And I am not saying I am a completely honest person, nobody is.But too much of everything is bad.

And once again, I am not confused and "falling over" to describe Budaatum . I understand the tactics of misdirection and disguise, often employed for self-preservation. My issue was never his affiliation,but his decision to extend that deception to our interactions.

This is why I have decided to disengage. It is futile to seek honest discourse with someone who operates this way, and it is equally futile to debate the principles of honesty with those who would joke them away.

I only blame myself for not ignoring him the first time. He's not the only one here I can interact with so why should I bother myself.

I chose to stand on a point of principle. I have made my case. I now choose to step away. Thank you again for your initial help

@FxMasterz, I would advise you ignore Buda's direct request. He wants to gaslight you

A person with nothing to hide would not be this desperate to guide your judgement or control the narrative.

The evidence speaks for itself. You're intelligent enough to review it and draw your own conclusions without his manipulative coaching

His behaviour is the very definition of a guilty conscience. A clear conscience fears no accusation

This una big big English the confuse me ooo which one cause and uncaused again

Meedon:
This una big big English the confuse me ooo which one cause and uncaused again

Ask @Deepsight to break it down for you

triplechoice:
Ask @Deepsight to break it down for you

Can't you or budaatum help me out?

Meedon:
Can't you or budaatum help me out?

+
The universe exists.
It also began from a point.

The expansion called the big bang.

For anything to begin to exist, or even move, there must be a cause.
.
Therefore the next question is what caused that cause.

This leads us to an infinite regress of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is impossible because it would mean that nothing could exist or move in the first place.

This leads us to the idea of an uncaused cause. Something permanent that necessarily self exists. It exists because its nature is existence itself. It is self existent. It is uncaused.

Time, for example is self existent and uncaused and so is space. Spacetime.

In this we understand that there is fundamentally and necessarily an uncaused cause, a permanent and eternal root of all reality.

That uncaused cause is what I personally call God.

I have also before defined it as the sum of all self existent laws.

DeepSight:
+
The universe exists.
It also began from a point.

The expansion called the big bang.

For anything to begin to exist, or even move, there must be a cause.
.
Therefore the next question is what caused that cause.

This leads us to an infinite regress of causes.

An infinite regress of causes is impossible because it would mean that nothing could exist or move in the first place.

This leads us to the idea of an uncaused cause. Something permanent that necessarily self exists. It exists because its nature is existence itself. It is self existent. It is uncaused.

Time, for example is self existent and uncaused and so is space. Spacetime.

In this we understand that there is fundamentally and necessarily an uncaused cause, a permanent and eternal root of all reality.

That uncaused cause is what I personally call God.

I have also before defined it as the sum of all self existent laws.

Is this God Yahweh that promised to send sinners to hell?

Meedon:
Is this God Yahweh that promised to send sinners to hell?

+
Certainly not.

DeepSight:
+
Certainly not.

This got to show that everyone has his or her own God according to their own understanding or upbringing. No wonder MacinDHouse did not believe Yahweh throw sinners into hell even though he believes in Yahweh and his only begotten son Yesusss Kristaaa.

While someone like righteousness89 believe that yahweh will throw sinners into the burning lake of fire at the time of their demise.

DeepSight:
An infinite regress of causes is impossible because it would mean that nothing could exist or move in the first place.

This leads us to the idea of an uncaused cause.

You say, "that nothing could exist or move in the first place", and then you create an "uncaused cause" to exist and move in that first place that you yourself say could not exist.

Is that logical at all, and not contradicting yourself?

And assuming an infinite regression is impossible, why stop at the first regression, and not the second or third or fourth regression?

For your information, an infinite regression is not a mathematical impossibility, as in does often occur. Example are found in calculation of pi and ⅓, and counting backwards a la 0, -1, -2, -3 to infinity, and more complex maths. It is only a metaphysical impossibility, and I'd argue that's due to the limits of thought, as I've proposed above.

We can at least regress to the tenth point, or the fiftieth or even the hundredth regression, but here am I being asked to stop at the second or third and insert an "uncaused cause" just because we don't actually know past the first?

My mind would not allow me to do that I'm afraid, and if I tried, it would laugh at me in mockery and emphatically tell me to pull the other one why don't you buda. But I can understand if your mind does not mock you like buda's mind would mock me when I present it with what it would flag as wuruwuru logic.

Meedon:
Can't you or budaatum help me out?

I don't mind trying to help you out Meedon, but you will need to state what you struggle with for me to elaborate.

Basically, question please.

I was prepared to give you indisputable evidence of true Christianity but since all you want is Islam there is no need wasting my precious time with you!🙂

Meedon:
This got to show that everyone has his or her own God according to their own understanding or upbringing. No wonder MacinDHouse did not believe Yahweh throw sinners into hell even though he believes in Yahweh and his only begotten son Yesusss Kristaaa.
While someone like righteousness89 believe that yahweh will throw sinners into the burning lake of fire at the time of their demise.

triplechoice:
@FxMasterz, I would advise you ignore Buda's direct request. He wants to gaslight you

A person with nothing to hide would not be this desperate to guide your judgement or control the narrative.

FxMasterz, indeed you may decide to let triple "guide your judgement or control the narrative", but beware what that leaves one to infer of you.

Thank you.