DeLioncourt:


I'm sorry to say but this makes absolutely no sense...
I dont remember comparing air to anything

Like I said, and as a believer quickly picked on, one is either a non-believing atheist, or a non-believing-believing atheist. Both are oxymoronic if you asked me and as you rightly pointed out, but here on NL both exist, at least as far as some are concerned.

You didn't compare air to anything which is why I didn't quote you. I'm certain you can figure out who did though. Just check other responses to the post. Out of interest, what doesn't make sense about it exactly, the comparison itself, or my comment about such comparisons?

DeLioncourt:


Like I said, the onus isn't on me to prove that god doesn't exist.

I'm wondering about the above and if it is just laziness on the part of some. When I go to buy my spanking brand new red Ferrari with the imaginary million pounds that is in my bank account, is it the saleman's duty to prove I haven't paid yet when I say, "give me key now, let me drive away in my brand new car"? Your position above is the equivalent of the salesman telling me to "fuq off, thief!" While the other position is asking the salesman to prove I haven't paid.

I wonder who the cops would arrest when they get called and who the judge would jail when we get to court, the salesman or me and my imaginary million pounds?

kovah:
theology is written script based on belief...
In a language...Dat isn't English... God is English..B more specific in the god u r saying doesn't exist.. The Christian god..The Muslim god.. The Jewish god... The Chinese god..Or Japanese God..
And like the air u can't see but need to breath... That doesn't need an explanation from u y it exist..
I wonder y dis strong disillusion....
u will eventually know the truth...Like a phone u and I will go out of date...
Will u b well liked and appreciated like a Nokia phone or forgotten like the others when a new version of ideology springs up

We know from elementary science why the need of air
For clarity sake, air, as in, meaning oxygen

budaatum:
I wonder why people compare air that one cannot see with an invisible non-phonomenal god.
Everytime I see people do it, I just wonder if they have considered what they say.
If I were to place you in an airproof room and sucked out all the so called 'invisible air',
would you be in a position to claim because you did not see it to begin with that I was not sucking out anything?

Tell me what would happen to you if what I sucked out was god please?

DeLioncourt:
I'm sorry to say but this makes absolutely no sense...
I dont remember comparing air to anything

budaatum:
Like I said, and as a believer quickly picked on, one is either a non-believing atheist, or a non-believing-believing atheist.
Both are oxymoronic if you asked me and as you rightly pointed out, but here on NL both exist, at least as far as some are concerned.
You didn't compare air to anything which is why I didn't quote you.
I'm certain you can figure out who did though.
Just check other responses to the post.
Out of interest, what doesn't make sense about it exactly, the comparison itself, or my comment about such comparisons?

Only God's Spirit gives new life.
The Spirit is like the wind that blows wherever it wants to.
You can hear the wind, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going.
- John 3:8

And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
-Genesis 2:7

When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!”
And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.
- John 19:30

Death is what would happen, as what you sucked out was God

Think pneuma,
or if your preference is Hebrew, think ruach
to realise, it is God, somewhat, sucked out
Same somewhat God, the breath of life, breathed in man

budaatum:

I'm wondering about the above and if it is just laziness on the part of some. When I go to buy my spanking brand new red Ferrari with the imaginary million pounds that is in my bank account, is it the saleman's duty to prove I haven't paid yet when I say, "give me key now, let me drive away in my brand new car"? Your position above is the equivalent of the salesman telling me to "fuq off, thief!" While the other position is asking the salesman to prove I haven't paid.

I wonder who the cops would arrest when they get called and who the judge would jail when we get to court, the salesman or me and my imaginary million pounds?

When you go to buy a new Ferrari, it is you who has to provide evidence that you actually have the money to pay for the new Ferrari. You are making the claim of being able to pay, hence you have to prove that you can by actually paying.

Let's say the roles were reversed and you indeed have the money. The Ferrari salesman calls you to inform you of the new Ferrari he has in stock.
The onus is on him to show you that Ferrari. You wouldn't pay for it based on his allusion that he has it.

If you pay for it based on that and you get scammed, a judge would ask you why you didn't seek reasonable evidence before making such a large payment.

Theists have made the claims that god exists.
Atheism could not have come before theism.
The claimant bears the burden of proof.

budaatum:


Like I said, and as a believer quickly picked on, one is either a non-believing atheist, or a non-believing-believing atheist. Both are oxymoronic if you asked me and as you rightly pointed out, but here on NL both exist, at least as far as some are concerned.

You didn't compare air to anything which is why I didn't quote you. I'm certain you can figure out who did though. Just check other responses to the post. Out of interest, what doesn't make sense about it exactly, the comparison itself, or my comment about such comparisons?

Both, actually.

Butterflyleo:

So saying hello to you translated to a test?

Yet debating with others was no test.

Guy waka far abeg.

Happy weekend... Hope the burn has healed.

MuttleyLaff:
We know from elementary science why the need of air
For clarity sake, air, as in, meaning oxygen





Only God's Spirit gives new life.
The Spirit is like the wind that blows wherever it wants to.
You can hear the wind, but you don't know where it comes from or where it is going.
- John 3:8

And Jehovah Elohim formed Man, dust of the ground,
and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and Man became a living soul.
-Genesis 2:7

When Jesus therefore had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!”
And He bowed His head, and gave up His spirit.
- John 19:30

Death is what would happen, as what you sucked out was God

Think pneuma,
or if your preference is Hebrew, think ruach
to realise, it is God, somewhat, sucked out
Same somewhat God, the breath of life, breathed in man

when I say air I mean air...Air consists of oxygen nitrogen helium and other elements... Oxygen is what sustains life...But there are other elements dat consist of our atmosphere dat make oxygen d life sustaining element it is....Revelation 4:4 declares, “Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones, and seated on them were twenty-four elders. They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.”.... don't take a part of d gospel dat is preferable to you...Just because you know nothing about the 24 elders in d scriptures... Doesn't mean they don't exist...

DeLioncourt:


When you go to buy a new Ferrari, it is you who has to provide evidence that you actually have the money to pay for the new Ferrari. You are making the claim of being able to pay, hence you have to prove that you can by actually paying.

Let's say the roles were reversed and you indeed have the money. The Ferrari salesman calls you to inform you of the new Ferrari he has in stock.
The onus is on him to show you that Ferrari. You wouldn't pay for it based on his allusion that he has it.

If you pay for it based on that and you get scammed, a judge would ask you why you didn't seek reasonable evidence before making such a large payment.

Theists have made the claims that god exists.
Atheism could not have come before theism.
The claimant bears the burden of proof.

Actually atheists claim atheism was the status quo before theism arrived on the scene.

So that changes your comment and that also tells you what you need to do.

budaatum:

The atheists will say the onus is on the believer, and not on them to prove the impossible. I too think they talk rubbish!

I wonder if you've heard about the million pounds in my bank account. I've had it a few months now, and plan to go to the Ferrari shop and buy a spanking brand new red Ferrari with it. Problem is that the Ferrari salesman will not take my word for it. So I'm thinking of telling him the million pounds is divine and cannot be seen, but he will receive it in his dreams. Yep, that might work. Except last night in my sleep I ate a meal of pounded yam and egusi soup with panla, bokoto, abodi and the most succulent ogunfe meat and washed the whole lot down with one big odeku beer. It was served by 6 of the most beautiful naked women you could ever imagine who rubbed my belly and kissed my lips as I ate. I was so full I could burst! Funny though, I woke up starving and had to eat two eggs on toast to alleviate my hunger!

I just hope the Ferrari salesman does not say, "that's okay, we'll deliver the Ferrari, in your dreams!

DeLioncourt:


Both, actually.

I'll assume it makes no sense to you. Someone else does not agree with you either. They said what a person in a room sucked out of god would become. Not that I've checked if that's true or not, mind.

Reality is based on perception...A bed bugs perception is based on its feeding habits...A dog's perception is based on smell... Money in d bank Is based on perception....its ones and zeros on a computer...U don't have it physically but when u want it is there...We all have our reality.... Putting ur reality b4 others...or challenging others reality...Is saying they don't have a right to live or exist cos ur existence is d right one

kovah:
Reality is based on perception...A bed bugs perception is based on its feeding habits...A dog's perception is based on smell... Money in d bank Is based on perception....its ones and zeros on a computer...U don't have it physically but when u want it is there...We all have our reality.... Putting ur reality b4 others...or challenging others reality...Is saying they don't have a right to live or exist cos ur existence is d right one

This is the reason I argue subjectivity with vaxx!

Reality is not based on perception at all! For one, there is quite a lot of reality that is not perceived by anyone. The planets were after all real even though no one knew they existed! Or would you claim they suddenly came into existence when someone looked up at them? And one's ability to perceive itself might be so compromised so one doesn't clearly see.

What you are saying is personal is not necessarily reality as what is real cannot be personal alone. Let me suggest words like "one's perception", "point of view", "subjective reality", and even the obnoxious "subjective truth" as introduced to me recently, instead.

budaatum:

This is the reason I argue subjectivity with vaxx!

Reality is not based on perception at all! For one, there is quite a lot of reality that is not perceived by anyone. The planets were after all real even though no one knew they existed! Or would you claim they suddenly came into existence when someone looked up at them? And one's ability to perceive itself might be so compromised so one doesn't clearly see.

What you are saying is personal is not necessarily reality as what is real cannot be personal alone. Let me suggest words like "one's perception", "point of view", "subjective reality", and even the obnoxious "subjective truth" as introduced to me recently, instead.

these planets are not important to a lion when he is chasing his prey...Is it?...The only living things dat bothers about the solar system is d human....The animals have accepted d universal concepts dat provide d seasons dat provide their nutrients...U don't see a shark having a philosophical reasoning when it's hungry... Obviously u want to put ur own perception on me to accept your own reality...Lol

budaatum:

This is the reason I argue subjectivity with vaxx!

Reality is not based on perception at all! For one, there is quite a lot of reality that is not perceived by anyone. The planets were after all real even though no one knew they existed! Or would you claim they suddenly came into existence when someone looked up at them? And one's ability to perceive itself might be so compromised so one doesn't clearly see.
So when there is another set of empirical value is added to d solar system as u know it... Somehow ur perception of living or existing changes.....Hmmm mm...
What you are saying is personal is not necessarily reality as what is real cannot be personal alone. Let me suggest words like "one's perception", "point of view", "subjective reality", and even the obnoxious "subjective truth" as introduced to me recently, instead.

real is based on perception ....Tell a blind man about his point of view...And tell him it's cannot be personal...Or tell a deaf name...His hearing of words is subjective truth or subjective reality...His perception of the world is his alone...

kovah:
these planets are not important to a lion when he is chasing his prey...Is it?...The only living things dat bothers about the solar system is d human....The animals have accepted d universal concepts dat provide d seasons dat provide their nutrients...U don't see a shark having a philosophical reasoning when it's hungry... Obviously u want to put ur own perception on me to accept your own reality...Lol

Truth has a way if adapting to each ones prerogative. Your perception of truth is defined by your frame of reference. As your reference changes, so can your truth. little did budha know lion truth maybe difference from human truth even shark or my favorite dog. budaatum if you have been reading the links i post to you, you will not be repeating this fallacy. please before you make an attempt to reply me this time. go through this topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/. Anyway i like the analogy you used when you say (i am paraphrasing you)
the thrillions you have in the bank is 1 and 0 in a computer'' cheers.

kovah:
real is based on perception ....Tell a blind man about his point of view...And tell him it's cannot be personal...Or tell a deaf name...His hearing of words is subjective truth or subjective reality...His perception of the world is his alone...

I do understand you kovah. My real is my reality. But my real might not correspond to reality itself, is my point, and claiming that "how I perceive the world, is exactly how it is", you might agree, is rather presumptiously arrogant of me, no?

I continously use the imaginary million pounds in my bank account with which I intend to buy a real spanking brand new red Ferarri. The imaginary million pound might, despite being imaginary, be real to me, and hence, a part of my reality. But I am having problems making the Ferrari salesman accept it as his reality too.

Surely, my real might not be reality, and I might be tripping?

You kitchen sink throw these references about, but I wonder if you understand them at all, and that's if you read them in the first place.

"In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. This ancient distinction launched philosophy as we emerged from Plato’s cave."

A perception of truth defined by my own frame of reference, is at best a truth that is subjective to me. As soon as I claim my subjective truth is the objective truth, I expect you to insult me vaxx, and rightly so!

Do tell me if I am wrong.

vaxx:
Truth has a way if adapting to each ones prerogative. Your perception of truth is defined by your frame of reference. As your reference changes, so can your truth. little did budha know lion truth maybe difference from human truth even shark or my favorite dog. budaatum if you have been reading the links i post to you, you will not be repeating this fallacy. please before you make an attempt to reply me this time. go through this topic. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/. Anyway i like the analogy you used when you say (i am paraphrasing you)
the money you have in the bank is 1 and 0 in a computer'' cheers.

kovah:
Obviously u want to put ur own perception on me to accept your own reality...Lol

There is no way to defend myself against this allegation, so I plead, guilty as charged.

You now see how my personal real perception might not be reality. And that in claiming it is, I might be deceiving you.

Please, if you know a Ferrari salesman who will accept that my perception is reality, do let me know. It will benefit me immensely if anyone agrees that my reality is real.

budaatum:
You kitchen sink throw these references about, but I wonder if you understand them at all, and that's if you read them in the first place.

"In its root meaning, then, phenomenology is the study of phenomena: literally, appearances as opposed to reality. This ancient distinction launched philosophy as we emerged from Plato’s cave."

A perception of truth defined by my own frame of reference, is at best a truth that is subjective to me. As soon as I claim my subjective truth is the objective truth, I expect you to insult me vaxx, and rightly so!

Do tell me if I am wrong.

lol, i have it in my disposal, if not i will not be able to throw it to your face, you lack comprehension, that is just it simple, that article only provide a better approach to what we called truth , telling you human truth is his own subjective experience, and what you called reality may be an illusion as the receiver of Nobel laureate (philosopher Tagore) put it and i quote ''the absolute Truth is which cannot be conceived by the isolation of the individual mind or described by words but can only be realized by completely merging the individual in its infinity. But such a Truth cannot belong to Science. The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called illusion''. . The table which I perceive is perceptible by the same kind of consciousness which I possess.

I AM NOT INSULTING YOU, I JUST WANT YOUR MIND TO WORK BETTER. I AM CHALLENGING YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY.

vaxx:
I AM NOT INSULTING YOU, I JUST WANT YOUR MIND TO WORK BETTER. I AM CHALLENGING YOUR MENTAL CAPACITY.

You are insulting me actually, in post after post. But I am letting it fly. It says more about your position than it says about me.

It was you who introduced the idea of an 'absolute truth'. My own position is that things can be checked to determine if statements about them are true at specific places (Nigeria), or time (current). If you comprehended, you would have noticed the frames of reference by now, but no, you repeatedly focus on the twig you perceive in my eye without considering the forest growing in yours! And you want to claim relative difference when it is the frames of references that have changed!

vaxx:
The nature of Truth which we are discussing is an appearance – that is to say, what appears to be true to the human mind and therefore is human, and may be called illusion''.

See? There you go again with your insulting by trying to impose your reality on me!

If you refer to something as an "absolute truth", when we are having a discussion about objectivity and subjectivity, would it be wrong to assume that you do not mean by it, the subjective truth that I may cook up in my head, but the objectively verifiable discernable truth?

Please note that when I talk about any truth at all, I mean the objectively verifiable truth alone and of the type: "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", and not some illusory statement that I cook up in my head like the false statement that, "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", or the imaginary million pounds in my bank account!

Such illusions are not only objectively false, but to refer to them as subjectively true is oxymoronic at the very least, and meaningless!

budaatum:

You are insulting me actually, in post after post. But I am letting it fly. It says more about your position than it says about me.

It was you who introduced the idea of an 'absolute truth'. My own position is that things can be checked to determine if statements about them are true at specific places (Nigeria), or time (current). If you comprehended, you would have noticed the frames of reference by now, but no, you repeatedly focus on the twig you perceive in my eye without considering the forest growing in yours! And you want to claim relative difference when it is the frames of references that have changed!


See? There you go again with your insulting by trying to impose your reality on me!

If you refer to something as an "absolute truth", when we are having a discussion about objectivity and subjectivity, would it be wrong to assume that you do not mean by it, the subjective truth that I may cook up in my head, but the objectively verifiable discernable truth?

Please note that when I talk about any truth at all, I mean the objectively verifiable truth alone and of the type: "Buhari is the current president of Nigeria", and not some illusory statement that I cook up in my head like the false statement that, "Prince Harry is the current president of Nigeria", or the imaginary million pounds in my bank account!

Such illusions are not only objectively false, but to refer to them as subjectively true is oxymoronic at the very least, and meaningless!

lol. i know when to stop an argument and this is the right time. maybe another one next time. thankfully i have passed my message. you may remain like this if you care.

vaxx:
lol. i know when to stop an argument and this is the right time. maybe another one next time. thankfully i have passed my message. you may remain like this if you care.

Oh, you and I know that you will forever insist on trying to make me accept that your illusory 'real' is independently verifiable objective absolute truth while at the same time claiming truth is subjective and nothing is absolutely true!

kovah:
when I say air I mean air...
Air consists of oxygen nitrogen helium and other elements... Oxygen is what sustains life...
But there are other elements dat consist of our atmosphere dat make oxygen d life sustaining element it is....

Try and live on nitrogen, helium and whatever the other elements with the exception of oxygen
and lets see how long you'll last being alive without breathing in oxygen
and having its reactive quality break down your food molecules to give you energy

kovah:
Revelation 4:4 declares,
“Surrounding the throne were twenty-four other thrones,
and seated on them were twenty-four elders.
They were dressed in white and had crowns of gold on their heads.”....

don't take a part of d gospel dat is preferable to you...
Just because you know nothing about the 24 elders in d scriptures...
Doesn't mean they don't exist...

I dont see the purpose of quoting Revelation 4:4.
It and all you wrote that followed are worth nothing apart from being a straw man

MuttleyLaff:
Try and live on nitrogen, helium and whatever the other elements with the exception of oxygen
and lets see how long you'll last being alive without breathing in oxygen
and having its reactive quality break down your food molecules to give you energy....My apologies I thought I was replying someone intelligent.... Oxygen isn't d only component of d air...It doesn't exist on its own...Dat is y I said air in my references in ur bid to outsmart yourself u corrected me on something dat u don't understand...But it's not my place to educate u

I dont see the purpose of quoting Revelation 4:4.
It and all you wrote that followed are worth nothing apart from being a straw man

u haven't heard of the 24 elders but they exist along side the heavenly host in d Christian narrative...So saying my anology of comparing air u can't see to a god or gods u can't see is incorrect...There are some many components to air as there are to d god concept....I thought dat was clear enough

MuttleyLaff:
Try and live on nitrogen, helium and whatever the other elements with the exception of oxygen
and lets see how long you'll last being alive without breathing in oxygen
and having its reactive quality break down your food molecules to give you energy

Kovah, are you trying to breath in your own 'real' air? Please oh, if its not got Oxygen in it, you will die of asphyxiation! And that's an absolute truth!

budaatum:

Kovah, are you trying to breath in your own 'real' air? Please oh, if its not got Oxygen in it, you will die of asphyxiation! And that's an absolute truth!

lmao I breathe in Oxygen o but not 100% Oxygen o

kovah:
lmao I breathe in Oxygen o but not 100% Oxygen o

Oh good. I wouldn't want you to go believing vaxx by creating your own version of air that has no real oxygen in it!

kovah:
u haven't heard of the 24 elders but they exist along side the heavenly host in d Christian narrative...
So saying my anology of comparing air u can't see to a god or gods u can't see is incorrect...
There are some many components to air as there are to d god concept....
I thought dat was clear enough

Please my dear sir, kindly reproduce or repeat here the post where I said:
"... your anology of comparing air you can't see to a god or gods you can't see is incorrect"

MuttleyLaff:
Please my dear sir, kindly reproduce or repeat here the post where I said:
"... your anology of comparing air you can't see to a god or gods you can't see is incorrect"

I think a certain buda implied that the analogy comparing air to gods was incorrect.

budaatum:
I wonder why people compare air that one cannot see with an invisible non-phonomenal god. Everytime I see people do it, I just wonder if they have considered what they say. If I were to place you in an airproof room and sucked out all the so called 'invisible air', would you be in a position to claim because you did not see it to begin with that I was not sucking out anything?

Tell me what would happen to you if what I sucked out was god please?

One is invisible, while the other is a figment of the imagination!

kovah:
lmao I breathe in Oxygen o but not 100% Oxygen o

Who except for medical reasons, breathes in 100% oxygen anyway

budaatum:


I think a certain buda implied that the analogy comparing air to gods was incorrect.

One is invisible, while the other is a figment of the imagination!

no vex

kovah:
no vex

When people do what you just done here, tears enter my eyes and I have to confess it. Thank you for being, good person.