₦airaland Forum

TenQ:
You this wannabe atheist:

There are at least 10 points raised AND
All you needed to do was to quote one of the scientific errors I stated, show why it is an error and you would have corrected a religious fanatic.

Do you hear yourself?

"God's righteous man"

Thats not a compliment, thats a cage
It needs suffering
It needs evil
It means he to needs to accept authority that cant be proven

Its also a real estate scam

And the funny thing 🤣 for all religions when you are born, the default setting is atheist until parents choose how to raise you, there is no belief at all

Its a cosmic joke
They strip away curiosity and replace it with fear of damnation and yes its a dammed nation

The kingdom of heaven that no one can prove exists

TenQ:
When your entire understanding of Christianity is based on ignorance!
SMH!

It is easy to defeat a Strawman!

You didn't defeat anything just fell for your parents scam

TenQ:
I would like to know the XYZ that I said about Jesus that is not according to the bible.
It is easy to tell such lie on a Faceless platform like this

No Son is equal to his father so Jesus in the Bible is lesser than his father he is not the Almighty that position belongs to his father.
But if you keep arguing over that then you have to present the achievement of this your Almighty in the midst of ITS worshipers!🙂

TenQ:
You this wannabe atheist:

There are at least 10 points raised AND
All you needed to do was to quote one of the scientific errors I stated, show why it is an error and you would have corrected a religious fanatic.

Norwegian..... we are not indoctrinated at birth
Notice a pattern in the world?

Richest countries = no religion in school, low std rates. Women can walk the streets safely. Parents dont beat their kids screaming "OBEY ME"

Poorest countries = religion forced in school, hiv and aids everywhere, HIGH levels of rape and child molestation. Human rights violations screaming to the world "RESPECT US, RESPECT OUR CULTURE, OBEY OUR RULES" streets full of plastic and suffering everywhere. Law is optional and corruption is everywhere.

If your god was real and loved you the unbelievers would be making each suffer wondering why BUT no, countries like Nigeria where the men rule with abuse calling it righteous and humility are suffering the most. Consider this fella..... your food for thought is leaving you starving.

TenQ:
You this wannabe atheist:

There are at least 10 points raised AND
All you needed to do was to quote one of the scientific errors I stated, show why it is an error and you would have corrected a religious fanatic.

You asked for one scientific error. Here is the biggest one, Your claim that "Intelligent life requires an Intelligent Designer" is a circular argument, not a scientific law.
If complexity requires a creator, then your God the most complex entity of all would require a "Super God" to create Him. If you say "God doesn't need a creator" you’ve just admitted that complex things can exist without a builder. You broke your own rule.
​But let’s look at the "Subjective Experience" you mentioned. You say you "tune into your conscience." My "conscience" tells me that a God who demands "respect" while his followers oversee suffering, plastic choked streets, and the abuse of women and children is a human invention used to justify power.
​You call it "Software" I call it "Indoctrination." In Norway, we don't need the fear of a "Sky Daddy" to be good people, we just care about each other. If your God is real, why are the people who ignore Him doing a better job of looking after His "creation" than you are?

sonmvayina:
j

what is your argument??

So yesterday, after you claimed I was too stupid to understand context and grammar, I felt the need to use some of the best tools out there and show you the results.

I am only hoping that now, you can admit you were not so correct about the grammar and the structure.

Then, we can move on to look at it from a more spiritual perspective, no more grammar and context.

We would ask questions like, do the Father and the Son share the same names?

Is Jesus Christ the Lord of Hosts?

Still so much to discuss. But first let's know if you are cleared on the context and grammar aspect because I still have more evidence to tender.

TenQ:
You this wannabe atheist:

There are at least 10 points raised AND
All you needed to do was to quote one of the scientific errors I stated, show why it is an error and you would have corrected a religious fanatic.

​You talk about "Software," "Dimensions," and "Prophets," but you are ignoring the data of the physical world we actually live in. If your "Software" (the Spirit) were functioning as intended in Nigeria, the results would look like the values found in the very Bible you quote. Instead, we see the complete opposite.
​Forced Conformity vs. Free Will. You demand "respect" and "obedience," but the Bible emphasizes a voluntary heart change (Joshua 24:15). Forcing religion through social pressure and tradition isn't "saving" anyone; it’s just indoctrination.
​Tradition over Truth: You prioritize man-made cultural customs (like the bride price/traditional rites) over actual spiritual or legal standing. Jesus specifically rebuked this in Mark 7:8, accusing people of "setting aside the commands of God to observe human traditions."
​"Big Man" Culture vs. Servant Leadership: In Nigeria, leadership is often about being served, carried, and feared. Yet, Jesus said in Matthew 20:26 that whoever wants to be great must be a servant. Your "Prophets" live like kings while the streets are full of suffering.
​Prayer as a Weapon vs. Love Your "Back to Sender" and "Holy Ghost Fire" prayers for enemies directly contradict Matthew 5:44, which commands you to love and pray for those who persecute you.
​The Fruit of the System: You claim Norway is "godless," yet it is a society of high trust, safety for women, and care for the poor. You claim Nigeria is "Godly," yet it struggles with systemic corruption, child abuse, and human rights violations.
If your God is real and your "software" is superior, why are the most "religious" societies often the most broken, and the "unbelieving" ones the most compassionate and functional? You are starving in a land you claim is blessed, while you criticize the people who actually built the "safe streets" you say God wants.

Fenrir:
You asked for one scientific error. Here is the biggest one, Your claim that "Intelligent life requires an Intelligent Designer" is a circular argument, not a scientific law.
If complexity requires a creator, then your God the most complex entity of all would require a "Super God" to create Him. If you say "God doesn't need a creator" you’ve just admitted that complex things can exist without a builder. You broke your own rule.
​But let’s look at the "Subjective Experience" you mentioned. You say you "tune into your conscience." My "conscience" tells me that a God who demands "respect" while his followers oversee suffering, plastic choked streets, and the abuse of women and children is a human invention used to justify power.
​You call it "Software" I call it "Indoctrination." In Norway, we don't need the fear of a "Sky Daddy" to be good people, we just care about each other. If your God is real, why are the people who ignore Him doing a better job of looking after His "creation" than you are?

1)Is there a scientific proof that good and evil exists?

2)Who has the ultimate right to determine what good and evil is?

Truthseeker10:
1)Is there a scientific proof that good and evil exists?

2)Who has the ultimate right to determine what good and evil is?

If you need a book to tell you how to be good while you do the exact opposite of what that book says are you good at all?

There is no scientific proof that “good” and “evil” exist as cosmic forces. Science doesn’t deal in moral absolutes. What it does prove is harm, suffering, wellbeing, cooperation, trauma, survival, social trust. Those are measurable. Morality emerges from biology, psychology, and social systems, not from metaphysical edicts.

If goodness only exists because a command was issued, then morality isn’t moral, it’s compliance.
And compliance under threat is not virtue. It’s fear management.

If good and evil only exist because God says so, then God could declare torture good tomorrow and it would be “moral.”
If they say “God wouldn’t do that” they’ve just admitted morality exists independently of God.

There are parasitoid wasps whose entire reproductive cycle depends on maiming living hosts, sometimes children, animals, or creatures that must remain alive long enough for the larvae to eat them. This isn’t a “fall of man” issue. This predates humans by millions of years. Why would create that? What possible reason is there? Thats the act of a psychopath and is infact evil.

Fenrir:
If you need a book to tell you how to be good while you do the exact opposite of what that book says are you good at all?

There is no scientific proof that “good” and “evil” exist as cosmic forces. Science doesn’t deal in moral absolutes. What it does prove is harm, suffering, wellbeing, cooperation, trauma, survival, social trust. Those are measurable. Morality emerges from biology, psychology, and social systems, not from metaphysical edicts.

If goodness only exists because a command was issued, then morality isn’t moral, it’s compliance.
And compliance under threat is not virtue. It’s fear management.

If good and evil only exist because God says so, then God could declare torture good tomorrow and it would be “moral.”
If they say “God wouldn’t do that” they’ve just admitted morality exists independently of God.

There are parasitoid wasps whose entire reproductive cycle depends on maiming living hosts, sometimes children, animals, or creatures that must remain alive long enough for the larvae to eat them. This isn’t a “fall of man” issue. This predates humans by millions of years. Why would create that? What possible reason is there? Thats the act of a psychopath and is infact evil.

If there is no scientific proof that good and evil exists, who has the ultimate right to determine what is good and evil?

Truthseeker10:
If there is no scientific proof that good and evil exists, who has the ultimate right to determine what is good and evil?

Me

Truthseeker10:
If there is no scientific proof that good and evil exists, who has the ultimate right to determine what is good and evil?

You asked who has the right to decide what is good and evil.
My answer is me, because I accept responsibility for my choices.
I don’t outsource morality to a book while doing the opposite.
I don’t need fear of punishment to stop me harming others.
When innocent women and children are in danger, I don’t pray, curse enemies, or wait for miracles. I act. I put my body between them and harm so they have time to escape and live. And i made that choice in wars zones all over the world for 12 years. Have you ever risked your life for people you never met in lands that are not yours simply because you couldn't bare the thought of innocent women and children suffering? "Boko haram" so no, you haven't.
That choice costs blood, pain, and risk. I accept that cost.
That’s what morality is to me.
Not obedience. Not promises of heaven.
But choosing to reduce suffering, even when it costs me.
If your system calls that “pride,” then your system has confused submission with goodness.

Fenrir:
Me

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Truthseeker10:
is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Your system is broken.
You preach God, compassion, and love, yet you sit comfortably while someone at the end of your street starves and rots to death. You smile, pray, and quote scripture while doing nothing.
You talk about family values, yet daughters are sexually abused and silenced to protect reputation. When she needs her father most, he hushes her. Not for her healing, but for his image.
Then later, when she finds love or tries to escape, you suddenly remember morality. You demand payment, submission, and apology, while forgetting that men like you knew what was happening and did nothing.
That is not righteousness.
That is not compassion.
That is organized neglect dressed up as virtue.
If this is what your God produces in practice, then the problem isn’t disbelief.
The problem is the system you’re defending.

Fenrir:
Your system is broken.
You preach God, compassion, and love, yet you sit comfortably while someone at the end of your street starves and rots to death. You smile, pray, and quote scripture while doing nothing.
You talk about family values, yet daughters are sexually abused and silenced to protect reputation. When she needs her father most, he hushes her. Not for her healing, but for his image.
Then later, when she finds love or tries to escape, you suddenly remember morality. You demand payment, submission, and apology, while forgetting that men like you knew what was happening and did nothing.
That is not righteousness.
That is not compassion.
That is organized neglect dressed up as virtue.
If this is what your God produces in practice, then the problem isn’t disbelief.
The problem is the system you’re defending.

your write-up above does not answer the question. I never told you the things you wrote up there. My question is simple.

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Truthseeker10:
your write-up above does not answer the question. I never told you the things you wrote up there. My question is simple.

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Sort your country out.
Stop the rape
Stop the molestation
Stop the killing over culture
Stop the killing over religion
Stop fathers forcing daughters to suffer in silence
Put yourself infront of your child as a shield then we will talk about good and evil. Until then you are spitting hypocrisy and nothing more.

Fenrir:
Sort your country out.
Stop the rape
Stop the molestation
Stop the killing over culture
Stop the killing over religion
Stop fathers forcing daughters to suffer in silence
Put yourself infront of your child as a shield then we will talk about good and evil. Until then you are spitting hypocrisy and nothing more.

Does not still answer the question. I wonder why you may be scared of answering a simple question if you are an honest person.

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Truthseeker10:
Does not still answer the question. I wonder why you may be scared of answering a simple question if you are an honest person.

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

Ive answered your question enough its not my fault your parents failed to teach you right from wrong and only whooped your ass when you questioned the evil they did.

Ive posted the answer 4 times now, and you obviously cannot read
If you argue that raped is subjective, you are arguing that killing is subjective. You are the problem with country.

Truthseeker10:
Does not still answer the question. I wonder why you may be scared of answering a simple question if you are an honest person.

is your idea of good and evil subjective or it is the ultimate standard of good and evil for all mankind?

You keep asking if my morality is "subjective" because you want to believe that without your book, everything is permitted. You are hiding behind a question to avoid looking at the blood and dust of the real world.
You think that if morality isn't handed down by a "First Cause," it isn't real. You are wrong. Morality is inter-subjective and biological. We don't need a "Sky Daddy" to tell us that rape and murder are wrong; we have empathy, mirror neurons, and the visible evidence of trauma.
​If you believe rape is only wrong because a book says so, you are a dangerous man.
​If you know it is wrong because of the agony of the victim, then you’ve admitted you don't need the book.
You ask who has the "ultimate right" to determine good. I don’t look for "rights"; I look at results.
​My "subjective" morality led me to spend 12 years in war zones including your own country against Boko Haram putting my life on the line for strangers. I didn't do it for a reward in heaven. I did it because suffering is real and it must be stopped.
​Your "ultimate" morality allows you to quote scripture while your neighbors starve and your daughters are silenced.
You claim I haven't answered, but the truth is you don't like the answer. If your "Objective Standard" was superior, Nigeria would be the safest, most honest place on earth. Instead, your "ultimate standard" is used as a shield for corruption and the abuse of the vulnerable.
​When you say "rape is subjective" in an attempt to win a debate, you are insulting every victim in your own country. You are choosing a philosophical "win" over the lived reality of human pain.
​I don't need a book to be a man of conscience. I am the evidence that humans can choose light over darkness without being threatened by a whip. If you can't see that, it’s not because I’m being "dishonest" it’s because you’re terrified of a world where you are the one responsible for your own actions.
​Sort your house out. Until your "ultimate standard" stops the rape and the killing in your own streets, your arguments are just noise.

Fenrir:
Ive answered your question enough its not my fault your parents failed to teach you right from wrong and only whooped your ass when you questioned the evil they did.

Ive posted the answer 4 times now, and you obviously cannot read
If you argue that raped is subjective, you are arguing that killing is subjective. You are the problem with country.

Ok if you were to claim that your idea of good and evil is the ultimate standard for all mankind, do all global governmental laws and policies agree with your ideology of good and evil?

Truthseeker10:
Ok if you were to claim that your idea of good and evil is the ultimate standard for all mankind, do all global governmental laws and policies agree with your ideology of good and evil?

You have severe case of diarrhoea for gray matter...

No. I do not claim my morality is the “ultimate standard for all mankind” handed down by me as an authority. That framing is your invention, not my position.
Now the actual answer.
Global governments do not agree on gods.
They do not agree on theology.
They do not agree on which scripture is “ultimate.”
there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations alone, all claiming divine authority and all disagreeing with each other. If God were the source of a clear moral standard, that fragmentation would not exist.
But here’s the part YOU can’t escape.
Despite massive disagreement on religion, culture, and politics, most of the world converges on human rights law.
Not perfectly. Not everywhere. But clearly.
Why?
Because human rights are based on harm, dignity, consent, and protection of the vulnerable, not revelation.
That’s why documents like: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
conventions against torture
conventions against rape, slavery, child abuse
exist across countries with completely different gods or no god at all.
Those laws don’t ask: “What does your god say?”
They ask: “Does this action cause measurable harm to a human being?”
That’s inter-subjective morality in action.
Now the killer point, stated plainly.
If divine morality were the ultimate standard, countries that claim the strongest belief should have the strongest protection of women, children, and the poor.
They don’t.
Instead, the countries that most closely follow secular rule of law and human rights tend to have safer streets
lower violence
less child abuse
less corruption
While the countries that blur law with religion constantly excuse abuse as: “culture” “tradition” “discipline” “God’s will”
So no, governments don’t agree with my morality.
They increasingly agree with outcomes-based morality: reduce suffering protect consent punish abuse limit power
And when Nigeria ignores its own laws while shouting about God, that’s not a failure of atheism or relativism.
That’s a failure of accountability.

Fenrir:
You have severe case of diarrhoea for gray matter...

No. I do not claim my morality is the “ultimate standard for all mankind” handed down by me as an authority. That framing is your invention, not my position.
Now the actual answer.
Global governments do not agree on gods.
They do not agree on theology.
They do not agree on which scripture is “ultimate.”
there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations alone, all claiming divine authority and all disagreeing with each other. If God were the source of a clear moral standard, that fragmentation would not exist.
But here’s the part YOU can’t escape.
Despite massive disagreement on religion, culture, and politics, most of the world converges on human rights law.
Not perfectly. Not everywhere. But clearly.
Why?
Because human rights are based on harm, dignity, consent, and protection of the vulnerable, not revelation.
That’s why documents like: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
conventions against torture
conventions against rape, slavery, child abuse
exist across countries with completely different gods or no god at all.
Those laws don’t ask: “What does your god say?”
They ask: “Does this action cause measurable harm to a human being?”
That’s inter-subjective morality in action.
Now the killer point, stated plainly.
If divine morality were the ultimate standard, countries that claim the strongest belief should have the strongest protection of women, children, and the poor.
They don’t.
Instead, the countries that most closely follow secular rule of law and human rights tend to have safer streets
lower violence
less child abuse
less corruption
While the countries that blur law with religion constantly excuse abuse as: “culture” “tradition” “discipline” “God’s will”
So no, governments don’t agree with my morality.
They increasingly agree with outcomes-based morality: reduce suffering protect consent punish abuse limit power
And when Nigeria ignores its own laws while shouting about God, that’s not a failure of atheism or relativism.
That’s a failure of accountability.

If most of the world converges on human right laws and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
conventions against torture
conventions against rape, slavery, child abuse
exist across countries, why do governments not agree with your morality but instead agree with outcomes-based morality: reduce suffering protect consent punish abuse limit power?

Is it because your morality does not agree with outcomes-based morality that reduces suffering protect consent, punish abuse, limit power?

Fenrir:
Do you hear yourself?

"God's righteous man"

Thats not a compliment, thats a cage
It needs suffering
It needs evil
It means he to needs to accept authority that cant be proven

Its also a real estate scam

And the funny thing 🤣 for all religions when you are born, the default setting is atheist until parents choose how to raise you, there is no belief at all

Its a cosmic joke
They strip away curiosity and replace it with fear of damnation and yes its a dammed nation

The kingdom of heaven that no one can prove exists

Quote a point and trash it out if you can.

Fenrir:
You didn't defeat anything just fell for your parents scam

Your problem is rejecting what you don't even understand!
Your comprehension is abysmal at best

MaxInDHouse:
No Son is equal to his father so Jesus in the Bible is lesser than his father he is not the Almighty that position belongs to his father.
But if you keep arguing over that then you have to present the achievement of this your Almighty in the midst of ITS worshipers!🙂

I will prefer if you quote me and not insinuate what you think I believe.

Fenrir:
You asked for one scientific error. Here is the biggest one, Your claim that "Intelligent life requires an Intelligent Designer" is a circular argument, not a scientific law.
If complexity requires a creator, then your God the most complex entity of all would require a "Super God" to create Him. If you say "God doesn't need a creator" you’ve just admitted that complex things can exist without a builder. You broke your own rule.
​But let’s look at the "Subjective Experience" you mentioned. You say you "tune into your conscience." My "conscience" tells me that a God who demands "respect" while his followers oversee suffering, plastic choked streets, and the abuse of women and children is a human invention used to justify power.
​You call it "Software" I call it "Indoctrination." In Norway, we don't need the fear of a "Sky Daddy" to be good people, we just care about each other. If your God is real, why are the people who ignore Him doing a better job of looking after His "creation" than you are?

Pick one theme at a time!

Do you agree that in the physical Dimensions, you will be correct.

But from a higher Dimension to the physical, you would be completely wrong for you have no way to even comprehend the possibilities in the higher dimensions to the physical realities.

If you had followed the progression from 1 through 10 , you wouldn't make this mistake


I told you to READ the Book Flat Land

Fenrir:
You have severe case of diarrhoea for gray matter...

No. I do not claim my morality is the “ultimate standard for all mankind” handed down by me as an authority. That framing is your invention, not my position.
Now the actual answer.
Global governments do not agree on gods.
They do not agree on theology.
They do not agree on which scripture is “ultimate.”
there are tens of thousands of Christian denominations alone, all claiming divine authority and all disagreeing with each other. If God were the source of a clear moral standard, that fragmentation would not exist.
But here’s the part YOU can’t escape.
Despite massive disagreement on religion, culture, and politics, most of the world converges on human rights law.
Not perfectly. Not everywhere. But clearly.
Why?
Because human rights are based on harm, dignity, consent, and protection of the vulnerable, not revelation.
That’s why documents like: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
conventions against torture
conventions against rape, slavery, child abuse
exist across countries with completely different gods or no god at all.
Those laws don’t ask: “What does your god say?”
They ask: “Does this action cause measurable harm to a human being?”
That’s inter-subjective morality in action.
Now the killer point, stated plainly.
If divine morality were the ultimate standard, countries that claim the strongest belief should have the strongest protection of women, children, and the poor.
They don’t.
Instead, the countries that most closely follow secular rule of law and human rights tend to have safer streets
lower violence
less child abuse
less corruption
While the countries that blur law with religion constantly excuse abuse as: “culture” “tradition” “discipline” “God’s will”
So no, governments don’t agree with my morality.
They increasingly agree with outcomes-based morality: reduce suffering protect consent punish abuse limit power
And when Nigeria ignores its own laws while shouting about God, that’s not a failure of atheism or relativism.
That’s a failure of accountability.

I have not seen your reply. Maybe it was deleted by the bot.

You can answer again.

If most of the world converges on human right laws and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
conventions against torture
conventions against rape, slavery, child abuse
exist across countries, why do governments not agree with your morality but instead agree with outcomes-based morality that reduces suffering, protect consent, punish abuse, limit power?

Is it because your morality does not agree with outcomes-based morality that reduces suffering, protect consent, punish abuse, limit power?

TenQ:
I will prefer if you quote me and not insinuate what you think I believe.

Your personal problems has nothing to do with me if you don't want to become submissive to any group teaching that's your own cup of coffee, Jesus has a group and they are working together as one team {John 17:22} thinking they shouldn't have sinners among them is not scriptural because Jesus himself said he came to call sinners not the righteous. Matthew 9:13
So in his group we don't worship him as God rather we obey him as God's only begotten Son through whose instructions we can be saved.
Whoever feels too big to humble himself under Christ's chosen (anointed) brothers can't have a place among us. Matthew 25:41-46
That's the difference between true Christians and false religionists claiming Christians! Matthew 7:12-13🙂

MaxInDHouse:
Your personal problems has nothing to do with me if you don't want to become submissive to any group teaching that's your own cup of coffee, Jesus has a group and they are working together as one team {John 17:22} thinking they shouldn't have sinners among them is not scriptural because Jesus himself said he came to call sinners not the righteous. Matthew 9:13
So in his group we don't worship him as God rather we obey him as God's only begotten Son through whose instructions we can be saved.
Whoever feels too big to humble himself under Christ's chosen (anointed) brothers can't have a place among us. Matthew 25:41-46
That's the difference between true Christians and false religionists claiming Christians! Matthew 7:12-13🙂

Whatever you think doesn't represent me either. It's easy to fight a Strawman and win.