₦airaland Forum

crusadistic:
Yes,atheists think they are wise....but is it not still the same hell they going to with pagans and Muslims

That's the same thing Muslims are saying about you. And neither of you have proof. So you sound equally delusional.

crusadistic:
Yes,atheists think they are wise....but is it not still the same hell they going to with pagans and Muslims

I think that is an inappropriate comment. You are obviously Christian.

absolutism:
is there a ball on the table a) there is a ball on the table b) there is no ball on the table c) is there another option to answer this question? Seriously

How important is mutual exclusivity to Logic?

How important is mutual exclusivity to Reality?

SidL:
I like that answer, "I don't know." You will get there. It is a process.


The point is invalid within the context of our discourse simply because i never said i am religious. I do not do Religion. At the same time i do not do Atheism. I am part of neither. Yet, I "do" both in the sense that each side has qualities which manifest some Truths of Existence when considered simultaneously. Hence my "neither and both."

In other words, you're like Spinoza.

Theists believe in the existence of an intelligent Source of Creation. But their understanding of it borders on 'magic and magic wands'...woo-woo.

Atheist do not. They believe that creation comes forth--by itself--through set principles which is their thrust to identify and quantify. They will not allow room for consideration that if creation is a child, then surely it must have a parent.

That's a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply saying, in very crude terms:
"If there is a god, let me prove himself and not you trying to prove him".

Most Atheists on this forum will accept the possibility of a creator if shown convincing evidence.
TBH, atheism is a response to the rituals and hiatuses observed by both major Religion in this Country.

Atheism in general exists because of the inadequacy of the world religions in answering the worlds problem, in fact, they worsen it.

Atheism is directed as theism; the belief that a personal god watches you in 7D and is annoyed when you masturbate and demands that you pay 10 percent of your money or chop off the heads of unbelievers and all that.

Neither by itself is right. But by combining both qualities, both are TOGETHER, correct.

Creation has a parent and the method by which heavenly bodies--upon which we live--are born and maintained, is by set universal principles.

It is a lack of understanding of the ways and processes of the Source of Creation that is responsible for the hell we have created on this planet.

You definitely sound Agnostic.
Yet where is the truth? Where is the answer to everything??
Is there even such an answer

What is even the question??

If that sounds like any eastern philosophy, then maybe you best pay attention then.
All religions have truth in them anyways. Atheists also have truth. The one white light is a combination of all colours is it not?
Ah but i know, both sides still, profess a lot of BS too.

"God" is the cold blackness of space. It, not "he" nor "she" is intelligent. It is a hermaphrodite by idea.

You lost me there.
I guess the question I should have asked in the beginning was :

How do you view God??

SirWere:
In other words, you're like Spinoza.



That's a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply saying, in very crude terms:
"If there is a god, let me prove himself and not you trying to prove him".

Most Atheists on this forum will accept the possibility of a creator if shown convincing evidence.
TBH, atheism is a response to the rituals and hiatuses observed by both major Religion in this Country.

Atheism in general exists because of the inadequacy of the world religions in answering the worlds problem, in fact, they worsen it.

Atheism is directed as theism; the belief that a personal god watches you in 7D and is annoyed when you masturbate and demands that you pay 10 percent of your money or chop off the heads of unbelievers and all that.


You definitely sound Agnostic.
Yet where is the truth? Where is the answer to everything??
Is there even such an answer

What is even the question??


You lost me there.
I guess the question I should have asked in the beginning was :

How do you view God??

In other words, you're like Spinoza.

I have no idea who that is.

That's a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply saying, in very crude terms:
"If there is a god, let me prove himself and not you trying to prove him".

Most Atheists on this forum will accept the possibility of a creator if shown convincing evidence.
TBH, atheism is a response to the rituals and hiatuses observed by both major Religion in this Country.

Atheism in general exists because of the inadequacy of the world religions in answering the worlds problem, in fact, they worsen it.

Atheism is directed as theism; the belief that a personal god watches you in 7D and is annoyed when you masturbate and demands that you pay 10 percent of your money or chop off the heads of unbelievers and all that.

Hmm... I misunderstand atheism? Perhaps you're right. I find your take on it quite interesting though. It is new to me. It seems a comprise in atheistic values is re-emerging and i'd say that this is a most welcome development indeed. Because my understanding of atheism per dictionary definition is "noun: atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

The first paragraph of our 'dear' wikipedia states: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
Clearly, if there has been an update to the definition or perhaps you are redefining it, i missed the memo. Let's not worry about that, it's a minor technicality of the semantic sort, or is it?

If we go by your stance then i'd say we have a stand-off between the two which will never ever be resolved because if one is seeking proof of The Source of Things which the other knows only by belief, who then will do the proving? Very well then.

Note that atheism does not fare any better in any of its accusations towards theism. I too grew weary of the silly rituals of religion, the Catholics in particular score 10/10 on rituals, but atheism was not my response. My response was to seek the Truth about the idea of "God."

You definitely sound Agnostic.
Yet where is the truth? Where is the answer to everything??
Is there even such an answer

What is even the question??

When you decide the question you wish to ask, i believe you will find the path to follow to get answers. You are obviously seeking to know truth. Then please pucker up like one who is truly seeking. Knee-jerk rejection-responses to ideas which may hold the keys you seek will not get you any closer to Truth my dear friend. You have to start somewhere and that where is entirely Mindal or mental.

So i sound Agnostic now abi? LOL!!!!! Bross abeg.
Enough of the labels please.

You lost me there.
I guess the question I should have asked in the beginning was :

How do you view God??

No i did not loose you. That was a literal statement and i'll say again in other words: "Space itself IS God." It's a new thinking for you, that's all.
"Thank God" for NEPA. When next there is a power failure at night, please go outside and look up at the night sky. You will see two things, the cosmos (black space) and the universe (stars). Actually, that the cosmos is invisible is why your eyes registers it as black, its not even black.
Ever wondered what "space" is?
I say again, it is "God." What else but "space" is omnipresent? How else do you suppose that "God" according to religion is omnipresent? Where is there not space?

My view of "God" (and note my insistence to quote the word) is that God or Gods are people, humans. Please read the "Lost Book of Enki" by Zacharia Sitchin for an idea of my meaning. When more advanced--but still immature--people with technology encounter younger ones who can barely cook, they become GODS since what they display is akin to magic, woo-woo. To be God or a God means to be Lord over another. People forget that God denotes masculinity and therefore the more correct use of the idea should be Gods and Goddesses.
The idea of a God/Goddess denotes separateness or far-away-ness--that one is here and the other is over there.

The Source of Creation is not a God or Goddess. IT has no need be God, over whom? We are all ITS thoughts--an idea with both philosophical and scientific implications--and therefore cannot be separate from IT.
IT is us, and we are IT.
There is only ONE PERSON after all, in existence.

In the past when the "Truth books" were penned, Gods/Goddesses quite literally meant more advanced humans. Today however, people actually refer to the Source of Creation when they say and pray to "God." So as to avoid misunderstanding, i just stick with the term but place it in quotation because i have a long "genetic memory" of what the word originally meant and find that i am simply unwilling to compromise. I am not a fan of bullies!

PastorAIO:
How important is mutual exclusivity to Logic?

How important is mutual exclusivity to Reality?

try following the conversation which led to the question

ilovetheline:
try following the conversation which led to the question

Did you follow the conversation? IF you did then you'd notice that Absolutism wasn't following the conversation either but I found an interesting aside which he brought up.


Lest you couldn't follow either: Sidl said two parties had OPINIONS about themselves and each other. One of these parties could be right and the other wrong. Or they could both be wrong.

I could say I believe you're a french man.
You could say, no, you believe I'm a french man.

I could be wrong, you could be right,, or vice verse, we could both be wrong, we could both be right etc etc etc. Permutations and combinations. Mutual exclusivity does not apply here.

That is a totally different kettle of fish from talking of 'balls on the table'. The balls do not have opinions about each other.

However if we wanna talk about balls, I'm happy to talk about balls. I'm happy to talk about whether the possible locations of a ball are mutually exclusive and the effect that has on discussing logically.

PastorAIO:
Did you follow the conversation? IF you did then you'd notice that Absolutism wasn't following the conversation either but I found an interesting aside which he brought up.


Lest you couldn't follow either: Sidl said two parties had OPINIONS about themselves and each other. One of these parties could be right and the other wrong. Or they could both be wrong.

I could say I believe you're a french man.
You could say, no, you believe I'm a french man.

I could be wrong, you could be right,, or vice verse, we could both be wrong, we could both be right etc etc etc. Permutations and combinations. Mutual exclusivity does not apply here.

That is a totally different kettle of fish from talking of 'balls on the table'. The balls do not have opinions about each other.

However if we wanna talk about balls, I'm happy to talk about balls. I'm happy to talk about whether the possible locations of a ball are mutually exclusive and the effect that has on discussing logically.

sidel said there was 2 other possible answers, except from there is god or there is no god. Absolutism used the table illustration to show tha neither and both cannot answer the question at all

ilovetheline:
sidel said there was 2 other possible answers, except from there is god or there is no god. Absolutism used the table illustration to show tha neither and both cannot answer the question at all

I recall things a little differently. It started here:

SidL:
Could it be that Theists and Atheists are 100% right about each the other??

Now while I can't speak for Sidl, I can't say what it is that Theists and atheists say or think that they are right about and whether those things are mutually exclusive, my understanding of english language (and the result of my following the conversation) has led me to believe that he is referring to opinions (whether expressed or merely thought).

Now, Theists may think that atheists love to eat fufu. And Atheists may think that Theists like to eat fufu. They could both be right, both be wrong, or one or the other could be right which the other or the one is wrong.

Bringing balls on a table into the conversation suggests a difficult with english comprehension. to me shaaa. but who knows.

SidL:
Hello Pastor, love your work.

Indeed, observations. Perhaps therein rests the problem and foundation of debate as to the existence of a Source of Creation, the one that people casually refer to as God or a God. The senses have a set range of frequencies or light spectrum they can respond to, is there any reason to assume that the "God" question has its answer in..."Observation," through senses which are patently limited in perception?

I do not follow the logic of how the hypothetical response of the cat constitutes an observation, but perhaps we both need to ponder that further.

Imagine an event somewhere (anywhere) in the universe that is beyond the perception of our senses. But not only that but it has No effect (zero effect) on anything that we'll ever perceive. Can that event be said to exist?

Like imagine a planet somewhere that that exerted NO gravitational pull so you couldn't see any effect on any of the other planets or stars. It intact exerted NO forces at all so you couldn't see any effect on it's environment. Furthermore it doesn't emit any light, or if it did the light would be outside of our visual range. So we can't see it. We can't observe it and we can't deduce it's existence by observing it's effect on it's environment. It can make no difference what soever to our experiences.
Could such a planet be said to exist (even if as postulated it does exist)?

PastorAIO:
I recall things a little differently. It started here:



Now while I can't speak for Sidl, I can't say what it is that Theists and atheists say or think that they are right about and whether those things are mutually exclusive, my understanding of english language (and the result of my following the conversation) has led me to believe that he is referring to opinions (whether expressed or merely thought).

Now, Theists may think that atheists love to eat fufu. And Atheists may think that Theists like to eat fufu. They could both be right, both be wrong, or one or the other could be right which the other or the one is wrong.

Bringing balls on a table into the conversation suggests a difficult with english comprehension. to me shaaa. but who knows.

fundamentally they cant be both right as there either is the god of the bible, or there is not. Even Elijah realized this. And both can't be wrong because there is god is one probability, while there is no god is the rest of the possibilities in the SET

PastorAIO:
Imagine an event somewhere (anywhere) in the universe that is beyond the perception of our senses. But not only that but it has No effect (zero effect) on anything that we'll ever perceive. Can that event be said to exist?

Like imagine a planet somewhere that that exerted NO gravitational pull so you couldn't see any effect on any of the other planets or stars. It intact exerted NO forces at all so you couldn't see any effect on it's environment. Furthermore it doesn't emit any light, or if it did the light would be outside of our visual range. So we can't see it. We can't observe it and we can't deduce it's existence by observing it's effect on it's environment. It can make no difference what soever to our experiences.
Could such a planet be said to exist (even if as postulated it does exist)?

sometimes I imagine being the good leader of the world. It doesn't make it any true or useful to my ordinary daily life

ilovetheline:
fundamentally they cant be both right as there either is the god of the bible, or there is not. Even Elijah realized this. And both can't be wrong because there is god is one probability, while there is no god is the rest of the possibilities in the SET

They can both be right, and they can even both be wrong.

If, going by the title of the thread, the point in contention is 'Who is Wise?', then even being right does not make you wise. Consider Gettier's problem.

Then on a different note entirely we can look at God and consider that God is beyond all our categorisations. Well, Existence and Non-existence are just categories of human thinking. God would therefore be beyond our notions of existence or nonexistence in which case both atheists and theists are both right and wrong.

Any way, the issue, if you're following the conversation, is not who is right about God or not, but rather who is right in their opinions about each other.

ilovetheline:
sometimes I imagine being the good leader of the world. It doesn't make it any true or useful to my ordinary daily life

You should not hold imagination in such derision. Maybe that's a destiny being revealed to you and you're now just mocking your own destiny.

PastorAIO:
You should not hold imagination in such derision. Maybe that's a destiny being revealed to you and you're now just mocking your own destiny.

I hold true what I have worked out or have paved a path to or had a path paved for me.

PastorAIO:
They can both be right, and they can even both be wrong.

If, going by the title of the thread, the point in contention is 'Who is Wise?', then even being right does not make you wise. Consider Gettier's problem.

Then on a different note entirely we can look at God and consider that God is beyond all our categorisations. Well, Existence and Non-existence are just categories of human thinking. God would therefore be beyond our notions of existence or nonexistence in which case both atheists and theists are both right and wrong.

Any way, the issue, if you're following the conversation, is not who is right about God or not, but rather who is right in their opinions about each other.

I usually bother myself with is there God or not, not the abue exchanges