₦airaland Forum

SonsOfLiverpool:
that's when the gods self-service. You know gods rest on Sundays

"And on the seventh day, Yahweh relaxed in his room with some vaseline and pornhub"

JeromeBlack:
No. People just watch porn on Sundays more

watch without practice....thst is a big disturbance

JeromeBlack:
No. People just watch porn on Sundays more

Can confirm. Watching porn now while doing my laundry....

JeromeBlack:
"And on the seventh day, Yahweh relaxed in his room with some vaseline and pornhub"

Am not an atheist so I don't ascribe my criticism to a particular deithy, that would be rude, Let us be mindful of our critics cos we do not have 100% knowledge of who we are.

vaxx:
watch without practice....thst is a big disturbance

Increase in rape? or is that NL frontpage messing with my mind?

JeromeBlack:
"And on the seventh day, Yahweh relaxed in his room with some vaseline and pornhub"

He didn't need pornhub. He was Big Brother of the biggest reality show at the time - "The Garden of Eden".

SonsOfLiverpool:
Am not an atheist so I don't ascribe my criticism to a particular deithy, that would be rude, Let us be mindful of our critics cos we do not have 100% knowledge of who we are.

Ah, a nice man... One who treats the gods with respect... So rare these days.....

HappyPagan:
Ah, a nice man... One who treats the gods with respect... So rare these days.....

Let us respect the gods real or not, let us drink alcohol, let us get high, let us take marijuana, let our souls dance every season

But let us not hate, let us be constructive with our criticism for we all are victims of consciousness trying to find the right path.

In my own philosophy, there are no rights or wrong,


there is only survival.

SonsOfLiverpool:
Let us respect the gods real or not, let us drink alcohol, let us get high, let us take marijuana, let our souls dance every season
But let us not hate, let us be constructive with our criticism

.
If in your own philosophy there are no rights or wrong, what is the ideology behind this?

for we all are victims of consciousness trying to find the right path.

And if there are no rights or wrong, what is a right path?

In my own philosophy, there are no rights or wrong,
there is only survival.

Does this philosophy have a name?

Daeylar:
.
If in your own philosophy there are no rights or wrong, what is the ideology behind this?

And if there are no rights or wrong, what is a right path?

Does this philosophy have a name?

we will continue to try, for every juncture we meet, we term it as the truth.

Man is hungry for truth, that is the price he has to pay for being the higher animal but he will never get the truth, truth is relative, knowledge is relative. The man who I consider dumb to him he is not dumb, man is a product of his knowledge and environment.

The "right path" is a facade, , our forefathers searched,
we will search, our sons, their sons and the sons after them will search, mystery will interfere, some will fall, some will continue, this is who we are, we are weak.

This philosophy is not one which is popular or learned, it is one I thought of after meditation, it is one I feel comfortable with.

Find what you like and fit in with it, leave others alone except when they affect you or when they become bigots (religious folks and atheist always do this)

Adios

Im dancing naked
Swinging my lala
Its Sinday
Time to go gaga

I no dey go church
But all the sermons dey reach my mansion
Church speakers loud pass my igbo,
All my windows dey receive the transmission

Islamization? Na dem dey colonise
Na church make NEPA bring transformer come my street
All the instrumentalists from my hood
If no be church, dem no go fit make beat...

Make I go find food out for belle
These my rhymes no dey give protein
But e go give your brain vitamin A
Make you start to dey see wella...

SonsOfLiverpool:
Let us respect the gods real or not, let us drink alcohol, let us get high, let us take marijuana, let our souls dance every season

But let us not hate, let us be constructive with our criticism for we all are victims of consciousness trying to find the right path.

In my own philosophy, there are no rights or wrong,


there is only survival.

Dude, its not even your philosophy alone, it is what we observe of the the universe. The only imperatives to life are survive and make more.

HappyPagan:
Im dancing naked
Swinging my lala
Its Sinday
Time to go gaga

I no dey go church
But all the sermons dey reach my mansion
Church speakers loud pass my igbo,
All my windows dey receive the transmission

Islamization? Na dem dey colonise
Na church make NEPA bring transformer come my street
All the instrumentalists from my hood
If no be church, dem no go fit make beat...

Make I go find food out for belle
These my rhymes no dey give protein
But e go give your brain vitamin A
Make you start to dey see wella...

You write so good.
And this was done under an hour right?

SonsOfLiverpool:
we will continue to try, for every juncture we meet, we term it as the truth.

Man is hungry for truth, that is the price he has to pay for being the higher animal but he will never get the truth, truth is relative, knowledge is relative. The man who I consider dumb to him he is not dumb, man is a product of his knowledge and environment.

The "right path" is a facade, , our forefathers searched,
we will search, our sons, their sons and the sons after them will search, mystery will interfere, some will fall, some will continue, this is who we are, we are weak.

This philosophy is not one which is popular or learned, it is one I thought of after meditation, it is one I feel comfortable with.

Find what you like and fit in with it, leave others alone except when they affect you or when they become bigots (religious folks and atheist always do this)

Adios

ok ""like-minded"" i am not the only one piloting this idea

Daeylar:
You write so good.
And this was done under an hour right?

Thanks... About 30 mins.

vaxx:
ok ""like-minded"" i am not the only one piloting this idea

Actually there are many but people just don't wantnto admit it for fear of backlash. Lol

SonsOfLiverpool:
Man is hungry for truth, that is the price he has to pay for being the higher animal but he will never get the truth, truth is relative, knowledge is relative. The man who I consider dumb to him he is not dumb, man is a product of his knowledge and environment.

I'm beginning to worry about this idea that truth is relative. I have to say that I have not found it to be so. I wonder if it's not really the case that some people are elevating what is false to some level of alternative truth! If there's observable evidence one way or the other, "true" are "not true" are hardly ever the same thing.

budaatum:
I'm beginning to worry about this idea that truth is relative. I have to say that I have not found it to be so. I wonder if it's not really the case that some people are elevating what is false to some level of alternative truth! If there's observable evidence one way or the other, "true" are "not true" are hardly ever the same thing.

Where there is little or no evidence as in the case of God or no God, the right religion or the wrong one, etc, they are relative. Am not talking about fact base phenomenon like someone stealing while the camera caught him or her am talking about religious and philosophical truth.

Every religion claim to know truth and also claim others are wrong, they all claim this with uthmost certainty, deep within their hearts they all feel their own is the truth, can we blame them? Naaah

Everyone is so engulfed in their own head, their own truth seem to be the real deal. That's why I have that position.

SonsOfLiverpool:
Where there is little or no evidence as in the case of God or no God, the right religion or the wrong one, etc, they are relative. Am not talking about fact base phenomenon like someone stealing while the camera caught him or her am talking about religious and philosophical truth.

Every religion claim to know truth and also claim others are wrong, they all claim this with uthmost certainty, deep within their hearts they all feel their own is the truth, can we blame them? Naaah

Everyone is so engulfed in their own head, their own truth seem to be the real deal. That's why I have that position.

footage camera will only be enough if it is completely and totally uninterrupted; that is, there are zero gaps and zero blind spots, otherwise a defense can be made that they put the item down in those gaps or blind spots. Mostly in this kind of incidence. What we have are approximation. Inteligent police officers and lawyers can train a criminal how to by pass it.

vaxx:
footage camera will only be enough if it is completely and totally uninterrupted; that is, there are zero gaps and zero blind spots, otherwise a defense can be made that they put the item down in those gaps or blind spots. Mostly in this kind of incidence. What we have are approximation. Inteligent police officers and lawyers can train a criminal how to by pass it.

Good, then you agree with me, even camera cannot be trusted with the truth hence every Criminal is first called a suspect.

If that cannot be trusted, imagine a phenomenon that cannot be observed with physical intelligence being portrayed as the truth.

There are no lies, there are no truths.

SonsOfLiverpool:
Good, then you agree with me, even camera cannot be trusted with the truth hence every Criminal is first called a suspect.

If that cannot be trusted, imagine a phenomenon that cannot be observed with physical intelligence being portrayed as the truth.

There are no lies, there are no truths.

Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence. what we cannot reached is the absolute true as it is shrouded in mystery......


Lies can subjectively and objectively exist too

vaxx:
Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence. what we cannot reached is the absolute true as it is shrouded in mystery......


Lies can subjectively and objectively exist too

For me, truth is objective. Never subjective. The problem is our 'experience' of the objective is merely subjective - you are just one instance in a world of many.

Most people rarely move beyond their 'knowledge zones'. Their feet rarely travel - life is a monotonous journey, a repetition of few tasks. Others read books that their minds far away - into the lives of others, into the past before they were, into the future through the minds of others.

The knowledge base grows, gaining one more clarity, detail and insight. It's my opinion that some objective truth MUST exist, and if it does, it exists beyond what we know... Maybe, it's this limit that makes us humans.

Maybe, the computers might do it. But would that be we, since we created them?

HappyPagan:
Im dancing naked
Swinging my lala
Its Sinday
Time to go gaga

I no dey go church
But all the sermons dey reach my mansion
Church speakers loud pass my igbo,
All my windows dey receive the transmission

Islamization? Na dem dey colonise
Na church make NEPA bring transformer come my street
All the instrumentalists from my hood
If no be church, dem no go fit make beat...

Make I go find food out for belle
These my rhymes no dey give protein
But e go give your brain vitamin A
Make you start to dey see wella...

Rapperholic.....

HappyPagan:
For me, truth is objective. Never subjective. The problem is our 'experience' of the objective is merely subjective - you are just one instance in a world of many.

Most people rarely move beyond their 'knowledge zones'. Their feet rarely travel - life is a monotonous journey, a repetition of few tasks. Others read books that their minds far away - into the lives of others, into the past before they were, into the future through the minds of others.

The knowledge base grows, gaining one more clarity, detail and insight. It's my opinion that some objective truth MUST exist, and if it does, it exists beyond what we know... Maybe, it's this limit that makes us humans.

Maybe, the computers might do it. But would that be we, since we created them?

Are you advocating for radical honesty ? Well that is good by the way, but in all honesty society can't function that way.

honestly.....https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_Honesty.

As for me i choose being pragmatic that tends to satisfy curiosity rather than awaken or changing emotions.. imagine a Five-year old girl (presenting you her much-labored-over drawing): Do you like my butterfly?[You examine the drawing and discover that it looks like a rainbow colored ]

You (being honest): No. It looks like shit. Might not be impressive here.

It would have been acceptable to keep away your fact in this instance, maybe even effusively so.You: Wow! It’s so pretty! I love the colors![Your benevolent reply of it is fine may inspire the girl to become the next Frida Kahlo or Marc Chagall]. That is the philosophy behind religion. The priest and the scholars know the fact and yet compliment it with pragmatic thinking. Factual evidence is not immune from revision and change ( this is an objective truth which science operate with).


Ok , Look on to principle of charity too.

...https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

SonsOfLiverpool:
Where there is little or no evidence as in the case of God or no God, the right religion or the wrong one, etc, they are relative. Am not talking about fact base phenomenon like someone stealing while the camera caught him or her am talking about religious and philosophical truth.

Every religion claim to know truth and also claim others are wrong, they all claim this with uthmost certainty, deep within their hearts they all feel their own is the truth, can we blame them? Naaah

Everyone is so engulfed in their own head, their own truth seem to be the real deal. That's why I have that position.

I agree that religious truths, and not the myths themselves, are relative. For instance, the myth that a god created the world is just that, a myth. However, the fact that Genesis 1 is the ultimate business and project plan when following the steps as laid out - gather data about the terrain, separate what might work from what might not, building step by step, etc and at each step quality checking - is a truism. And what is relative about its truth is relative human understand.

Claiming the myth is true is the same as claiming the goose in Aesop's fable truly laid golden eggs, when the truth of the story is its moral not to be greedy.

vaxx:
Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence.....

Lol! You saying vaxx and buda can agree on something they cook up in their heads and call it true because one of them has convinced the other? Yes, I agree they can do that. But getting others to agree with us that would take some doing, though the Emperor and his New Clothes suggest it might be possible to not have only deluded oneself but to delude others too.

I don't see how truth can depend on a subjective me and my gender cannot. By the reasoning I see here, buda can just chose a truth for the day and be a man on Monday and Thursday, and a woman every other day! And since the "rationale justifying the truth" could even be ridiculous, I wouldn't ever have to cut off my boobs or glue on a prick to make the switch.

Your "subjective truth" sounds like it's based on numbers. The more people agree with lies, the truer they become, sort of. I wonder what happens when a child speaks up and says the Emperor is clothesless? Child doesn't know what its talking about, perhaps?

budaatum:
Lol! You saying vaxx and buda can agree on something they cook up in their heads and call it true because one of them has convinced the other? Yes, I agree they can do that. But getting others to agree with us that would take some doing, though the Emperor and his New Clothes suggest it might be possible to not have only deluded oneself but to delude others too.

I don't see how truth can depend on a subjective me and my gender cannot. By the reasoning I see here, buda can just chose a truth for the day and be a man on Monday and Thursday, and a woman every other day! And since the "rationale justifying the truth" could even be ridiculous, I wouldn't ever have to cut off my boobs or glue on a prick to make the switch.

Your "subjective truth" sounds like it's based on numbers. The more people agree with lies, the truer they become, sort of. I wonder what happens when a child speaks up and says the Emperor is clothesless? Child doesn't know what its talking about, perhaps?

Real life science is base on evidence gathered from experiment. it is when NUMEROUS supporting evidence support it that is labelled a theory ( thru peer review ) . The peer review purpose is to make the work consensus and valid. And there are laydown method for the experts to follow..

Gold is objectively a yellow, soft, chemically inert metal. But to say gold is valuable is a subjective view that we all share.(maybe we cook it up in our head anyway.

Statements of "is" are statements of the objective.
Statements of "ought" are statements of the subjective.

In practice, we all understand objective reality via our subjective impressions and interpretations. There is no way around this fact: we are all imperfect observers. In practice, the "two worlds" overlap.

vaxx:
Real life science is base on evidence gathered from experiment. it is when NUMEROUS supporting evidence support it that is labelled a theory ( thru peer review ) . The peer review purpose is to make the work consensus and valid. And there are laydown method for the experts to follow..

No argument here, though I struggle to comprehend. But it t sounds like a description of the scientific method I already alluded was one way the subjective is removed from the objective.

vaxx:
Gold is objectively a yellow, soft, chemically inert metal. But to say gold is valuable is a subjective view that we all share.(maybe we cook it up in our head anyway.

Let me do a vaxx on this, you tell me what you think:

The statement, 'gold is yellow' is subjective.

And it's value too is cooked up in the head, according to some.

vaxx:
Statements of "is" are statements of the objective.
Statements of "ought" are statements of the subjective.

"There is God o" is an objective statement?

You and I both know people try to pass their subjectives off as objectives, but would you believe someone recently tried to use their own subjectives to prove to atheists that gods was created, and without even bothering to show that that which was claimed to be created actually exists? We all said he was tripping, but according to him, that was our subjective opinion, even though objective evidence exists to prove our point!

vaxx:
In practice, we all understand objective reality via our subjective impressions and interpretations. There is no way around this fact: we are all imperfect observers. In practice, the "two worlds" overlap.

That is your subjective opinion, vaxx. One made without regard to objective evidence. I call it, creating others in the image oneself is created in, and not realising that other people can possible be different to oneself.

Yes, the two words may overlap, for some, but it is possible for a person to know what is objective, and how it differs to what one cooks up in one's head! One just needs to try hard to remove the imperfections that create the error, by basically, opening one's eyes to the evidence before one.

What you claim is impossible was cured by the taking up of mud, spitting on it and rubbing it in the eye. Then you shall see!

budaatum:
No argument here, though I struggle to comprehend. But it t sounds like a description of the scientific method I already alluded was one way the subjective is removed from the objective.

My explanation here is basic. I am only stating the rationality behind peer review which is to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Which is purely base on consensus decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the scienctifc field.

Let me do a vaxx on this, you tell me what you think:

The statement, 'gold is yellow' is subjective.

And it's value too is cooked up in the head, according to some.

Both the yellowish gold and valuable gold is both the decision made on consensus agreement. What men decide.


"

There is God o" is an objective statement?

Does the statement gives room for scrutiny, probing and evaluation base on consensus agreement? If so yes, if no, then it is not.

You and I both know people try to pass their subjectives off as objectives, but would you believe someone recently tried to use their own subjectives to prove to atheists that gods was created, and without even bothering to show that that which was claimed to be created actually exists? We all said he was tripping, but according to him, that was our subjective opinion, even though objective evidence exists to prove our point

There is lay down for objectivism to be meet according to science, there is scienctifc method, according to General veiw which are testability and falsifability. Does this people pass statement that meet the lay down for objectivism ? Or was it term personal due to the lack of law down procedure above .

That is your subjective opinion, vaxx. One made without regard to objective evidence. I call it, creating others in the image oneself is created in, and not realising that other people can possible be different to oneself.

look up, it is address.

Yes, the two words may overlap, for some, but it is possible for a person to know what is objective, and how it differs to what one cooks up in one's head! One just needs to try hard to remove the imperfections that create the error, by basically, opening one's eyes to the evidence before one.

it overlap when human lacks the technicality to evaluate them. (I.e) it both meet up with subjectivism and objectivism . I will say God existence meet up with this statement, i will also say love existence meet up with this statement. But when we can easily address and place value on our statement, it is important we objectify and subjectify our statement.

What you claim is impossible was cured by the taking up of mud, spitting on it and rubbing it in the eye. Then you shall see!

From an evolutionary biology perspective, emotions are the key to cohesion in society, human being are very much subjected to this....our observation will always have this to fight.

vaxx:
My explanation here is basic. I am only stating the rationality behind peer review which is to prevent dissemination of irrelevant findings, unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations, and personal views. Which is purely base on consensus decision about whether it is legitimate, and adds to the large dialogue or findings in the scienctifc field.

Basic, yes. But inaccurate. Consensus has almost nothing to do with science. Everyone may even disagree with a scientific finding and it may still be valid, or invalid. That is the reason that the scientific method is not based on a vote but on "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".

But I'm certain this is what you meant. You said pretty much the same thing in the last paragraph. Goes to show that the 'truth' can most certainly be, objective. And a subjective truth is whatever one may cook up in one's own head.

I'm still looking for a Ferrari salesperson who would accept the imaginary million pounds I've cooked up in my bank account in exchange for a real spanking brand new red Ferrari .

budaatum:
Basic, yes. But inaccurate. Consensus has almost nothing to do with science. Everyone may even disagree with a scientific finding and it may still be valid, or invalid. That is the reason that the scientific method is not based on a vote but on "systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses".

Science is defined, in part, in terms of its utility. The utility of particular scientific models is dependent, in part, on the reliability of those models. Consensus improves the utility of models by reinforcing their perceived reliability and likewise Consensus in science allows the acceptance of a preponderance of evidence without proving that an idea is 100% true (since “proof” in science is fallacy on its own.
:

But I'm certain this is what you meant. You said pretty much the same thing in the last paragraph. Goes to show that the 'truth' can most certainly be, objective. And a subjective truth is whatever one may cook up in one's own head.

No, we human have a constraint will work with when it when it comes to science, we have a scienctifc method that address that, that was developed thru the subjective veiw of Aristotle. when it comes to general veiw, i personally used rigidity testing, i try as much as possible to put the statement into testing (checking for errors) and if it in allingness with my calculation, instinct and emotions. This appraoch may become objective tomorrow if i become an authority myself.

I'm still looking for a Ferrari salesperson who would accept the imaginary million pounds I've cooked up in my bank account in exchange for a real spanking brand new red Ferrari .

our current scientific method works with evidence not proof. If you can demonstrate that your imaginary millions pounds is indeed real by consensus approach. you should get your new Ferrari.

Consensus helps differentiate the observation of the natural world from miracle.

vaxx:
our current scientific method works with evidence not proof. If you can demonstrate that your imaginary millions pounds is indeed real by consensus approach. you should get your new Ferrari.

Consensus helps differentiate the observation of the natural world from miracle.

You're sounding like if I can get all my friends and family and a few paid others to consent that my imaginary million pounds is real, the Ferrari salesperson would have to let me have one.

Surely I'll need more than numbers?