₦airaland Forum

Enigma: ^^^ You always were a dunce and remain a dunce. Yep the link is there; in fact this is where my involvement started:

https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/1#11156971

I am happy for any intelligent person (can't be bothered about dunces) to read through and form their own conclusions.

An everlasting dunce projecting himself on others. Lol. . . the irony.

At least you did not deny that you told lies. Lying Christian. Oh wait, isn't that a tautology?

What a foolish human being.

Enigma: In another respect, I remember one of them quoting some American nonces and at the same time complaining that a couple of us were using an American case to explain that (evangelical) atheism has even been held at law to be a religion.

Have you no shame, Enigma? A full grown man like you telling lies on a public forum just to score cheap points? Are you friggin' kidding me??

For anyone that is interested, here's the post Enigma is referring to: https://www.nairaland.com/966459/arming-faithful-against-logic/3#11175237

Your argument was NEVER an attempt to explain how atheism had ever been held at law to be a religion. That explanation itself would have been totally unnecessary as no one ever disputed that for a moment. Instead, your duplicitous argument all along (and till this day) was that atheism IS, in fact, a religion simply because the US Supreme court made a special provision under certain circumstances to accommodate that classification for a specific case.

In other words, you argued that since the US supreme court ruled that atheism was a religion, therefore, atheism IS a religion. Everyone, including I, pointed out to you that even though that was the case, you cannot use that solitary example to impose a universal definition of what atheism connotes, especially as it was a legal interpretation restricted to a particular jurisdiction.

You then ridiculously went ahead to recall my previous Bill Maher quote to attempt to save face. You implied that since I quoted an American earlier, I was being hypocritical to condemn you for quoting an American law. Unfortunately for you, you failed to recognize the sheer idiocy of this comparison. People quote others all the time if the words resonate with their convictions, and it wouldn't matter if they were American, Chinese or Namibian. You, on the other hand, attempted to impose a universal definition with a legal interpretation that was CLEARLY SPECIFIC and restricted to a certain jurisdiction.

Even Deep Sight who is a theist like yourself destroyed your idiotic arguments completely on that thread, so much that all you could muster at the end was a feeble "tell that to the birds".

If you're going to misrepresent people and be telling lies all over the place, you should at least have a good memory to boot.

===
Sorry for going off-topic guys.

Anony: So sorry, but, I need to understand your problem. How do you define broke? What does hungry truly mean? Can you define broke and relate it to being kicked out?
A good definition of hungry could mean starving for Jesus who is the bread of life.

Absolutely spot on!

Ryan Giggs defying his age. . .

https://i.minus.com/ibmLR9SqTN3yBp.gif

FA Cup fourth round: Man Utd/West Ham - Fulham/Blackpool

[quote author=Mr_Anony]This is a rather good reply I must say (at least you took time to actually read the post rather than go for a 'quote & twist attack') but unfortunately you have committed the genetic fallacy. . .

. . . . .I think you should judge Christianity based on it's merits rather than how one came by it. . . . .and that's more or less what I have required of Cyrexx. He is yet to reply.[/quote]A happy new year to you too, sire!

mazaje: Anony is just lying when he says he was an atheist and I am VERY serious about that. . .His atheism was all about having ideas like rapingg women and feeling no guilt, not been responsible and not accountable for anything because only him mattered to him self etc. . .I was reading a post on psychology today. . . a study was conducted and it showed that in the broad strokes, ideology makes very little difference in the moral decisions most people make. . .People mostly go with their instincts in most cases. . .If his story is true which it is not, then he is just a depraved individual. . .

lol. . . you just summarized my whole post in a very blunt way.

One more thing Anony: this is not your Sunday school or cell meeting or whatever you people call it nowadays, where you share cöck and bull stories to win converts and solidify faiths, okay!!?

For Anony, atheism was virtually all about bashing Christians and asking annoying questions, à la Socrates' method (curious that he paints his "atheism" with a notoriously common stereotype). Dude even went as far as attending Christian fellowships just to bash people. Amazing!

For Anony, choosing to respect an individual's religious belief somehow translated to indirectly acknowledging the same God he claimed didn't exist. Wonderful logic. It is no wonder then that, as a supposed atheist who supposedly was fond of asking questions, he found LaVeyan Satanism appealing.

I also wonder why after reading 'Ivan The Fool', all he 'saw' thereafter was Christ. Why does something tell me that a former Zoroastrian would equally have 'seen' Zoroaster, and a former Islamist would very well have 'seen' Mohammed?

For me, I wouldn't go as far as to say that Anony was never a true atheist, as I'd be quite guilty of committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. My opinion, however, is that Anony was just a young (possibly aggressive) dickhead and an absolute douchebag who was battling within himself with the exuberance of youth, as evidenced by:

(a) his constant eagerness to go all the way to people's worship center to bash them such that he had turned them into his 'victims', and
(b) his eventual adherence to something as ridiculously sick as LaVeyan Satanism

The young Anony eventually found more solace in his abandoned religion, as it was the only thing that could reasonably afford him the luxury of forgiveness and by extension, riddance of guilt whenever he acted out the sick thoughts that dominated his mind. It is therefore not much surprise that he firmly associates atheism (which happened to coincide with this wanton period of his life) with all manner of ills (murder, rape, stealing, etc). Gentlemen, all Anony sought while supposedly being an atheist was simply something to rationalize his deeds, to make him feel good, no matter what he did, no matter how twisted. All of these, he now finds in Christianity.

Praise the Lord!

Sexiest moment of the match

https://i.minus.com/iR1ooxEVYyrNt.gif

"Before 2012-13 Man Utd had only scored 7 own goals at Old Trafford in 20 PL campaigns. This season they have 4 already."

Just about puts United's defensive woes this season into perspective.

berylLOL: err, I just need you guys to clear something up, what's you take on miracles?? I mean, miracles happen everyday in churches after calling on God, infact I'm a living testimony..so how do you explain miracles, like is there some theory behind it we all need to know?

That would depend on what you mean by miracles. Tagging just about any normal and natural activity as a miracle doesn't quite cut it.

Waking up every morning and being alive cannot be considered to be events attributed to divine intervention (which, I believe, is your definition of a miracle). Otherwise, taking a shit every morning should also be on the list.

Uyi Iredia: A good snapshot of what atheism portends.

A good snapshot of reality, you mean?

Isn't it obvious? Religion and superstition go hand-in-hand.

If you believe in Yahweh/Jesus/Mohammed/Vishnu etc and their varying antagonists (Satan/demons/Shaitan, etc) then you must necessarily be superstitious, regardless of your level of education.

Also, Nollywood ain't helping matters at all.

ogugua88: I don't see the logic of allowing violators of the law to vote on law issues. They didn't care about the law which is what got them in there in the first place. Prisoners aren't exactly a part of society, which is why they are imprisoned, so why should they be included in something as societal as voting?

You're right to some extent. Problem is, it isn't quite as black and white as you paint it. Your thinking assumes that all prisoners are deliberate violators of the law, which we all know isn't the case. In Uganda for example, a bill was recently passed which basically allows for people to be imprisoned for their sexuäl orientation. And then, there are cases of misapplied justice, innocent mistakes (one-off crimes not committed due to malicious intents), etc.

Besides, bad people vote all the time.

Something to reflect on: Not all prisoners are criminals.

ogugua88: When you commit a crime, you lose your rights. It's not rocket science and there's nothing mad about it. I gave the analogy of a child misbehaving and losing privileges. That's exactly what it is. One can't be a criminal and have the same privileges as me. If I'm good, I can vote. If I'm bad, I can still vote? No. If that's the case, then the incentive to do good has been diminished.

Except in this case, voting isn't a "privilege" as in the case of the misbehaving child. It is a right. Your analogy doesn't quite fit.

Unless you're arguing that rights can be stripped, in which case, it would cease being a right.

[size=16pt]No, Instagram can't sell your photos: what the new terms of service really mean[/size]

You agree that a business may pay Instagram to display your photos in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions without any compensation to you.

That sentence was added to Instagram's terms of service yesterday, sparking widespread outrage — the most panicked analysis claims Instagram just gave itself permission to sell everyone's photos at will. Even the least icky hypothetical scenarios being tossed around are completely icky: your parents leave a comment on a photos of your kid, and five minutes later, they're looking at an ad for a new life insurance policy featuring that same intimate photo of their grandchild. Is this really the future of Instagram?

Well, in a way. But it's a lot more like Facebook's current "sponsored post" system than anything else — there's no way Instagram can up and sell your photos to anyone, and advertisers are fairly limited in what they can do with those photos. Here's what's going on.

THERE'S NO WAY INSTAGRAM CAN SELL YOUR PHOTOS TO ANYONE

Instagram's new terms of service, which go into effect on January 16th, clearly state that your photographs and associated information (like location data) can be promoted by companies without anyone notifying you about the transaction. It's not even hidden in legalese — it's right there in black and white:

To help us deliver interesting paid or sponsored content or promotions, you agree that a business or other entity may pay us to display your username, likeness, photos (along with any associated metadata), and/or actions you take, in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you.

Adding to the creep factor, the next section says that Instagram "may not always identify paid services, sponsored content, or commercial communications as such." They're not even going to tell anyone about the ads. Again: icky.

But let's step back for a minute and think about what this actually means. First, like every other company on the web that stores user data, Instagram has always had an expansive license to use and copy your photos. It has to — that's how it runs its networks of servers around the world. And Instagram's existing terms specifically give the company the right to "place such advertising and promotions on the Instagram Services or on, about, or in conjunction with your Content." Instagram has always had the right to use your photos in ads, almost any way it wants. We could have had exact same freakout last week, or a year ago, or the day Instagram launched.

INSTAGRAM HAS ALWAYS HAD AN EXPANSIVE LICENSE TO USE AND COPY YOUR PHOTOS

The new terms actually make things clearer and — importantly — more limited. . .

Read more: http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/18/3780158/instagrams-new-terms-of-service-what-they-really-mean

Sexy football

https://i.minus.com/ibqUx8lUkpNIS4.gif

=====
Lovely RVP flick

https://i.minus.com/isVYOa7a1kWnr.gif

Interesting interview from Wayne Rooney here. Some extracts below:

Describe the high a 16-year-old experiences after a goal like yours against Arsenal back in 2002.

I can’t. I knew that my first goal wasn’t far off – I had a lot of confidence even at that age – but to do it like that, with that style, was incredible. It was great that it also ended a very good Arsenal team’s 30-game unbeaten streak. The place erupted and it’s all a bit of a blur from there.

Before breaking into the Everton team, what was your most memorable game as a fan?

The one that stands out to me as a kid is the 1995 FA Cup Final at Wembley. Everton played Manchester United, who by then were the biggest and best team in the country. I was in the youth team and the club took us all down with the team on the coach. What a day out. Everton won 1-0. That was a good journey home. I was also an Everton mascot at Anfield in 1996 for a Merseyside derby. Everton won that one too, 2-1. To walk out with the players that I so admired at age 10 was incredible.

What has been your biggest Premier League high?

That Arsenal goal was huge, but getting my hands on that first Premier League medal in 2007 was special.

And what about lows?

Last season at Sunderland. Walking off thinking, hoping, that maybe we’d won it, then being told that we hadn’t, was hard. It was a horrible feeling. A disaster for everyone involved.

You’ve mentioned the Arsenal goal, but do you have another favourite from the Premier League?

I love the overhead kick against City in 2011. That’s my favourite.

You’ve played with plenty of great strikers. Who’s been your favourite?

That’s so hard. There are so many… [thinks hard] I’m going to say Louis Saha. He’s a fantastic player; a real handful for anyone and I just really enjoyed playing off him. He was so lively and made great runs in behind. Always making space for others.

What about a dream strike partner?

Am I allowed to say Maradona?

What about an opponent? Is there a defender who has given you the most problems?

John Terry. He’s the hardest I’ve faced. He’s big, good in the air and he’s powerful, but he’s also a very intelligent footballer who reads the game so well. You come off feeling like you’ve been in a real game.

Read more: http://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/sport/wayne-rooney

This one right here is a classic!

plaetton: <snip>

[size=14pt]Imagine owning an entire universe all to yourself, and then fretting over the attention of puny humans.
Its comparable to an emperor having a low self-esteem because the bacteria in his faeces are not giving him enough attention.[/size]

https://www.nairaland.com/1093829/yahwehs-real-vision-hell#12838725

If you're going to implicate someone, you should at least take some time to study their style of writing properly. As much I strongly believe, alongside many others, that FFK is one despicable hypocritical douche, I am very certain that he did not write that piece seen in the screenshot (which, by the way, looks badly edited). I am subscribed to his updates on Facebook, and I know for sure that he NEVER abbreviates words ('u', 'ur', etc) even when he's insulting you.

@Ihedinobi:

Two points -

1) Daniel's exemption: I didn't exactly demand that the bible should categorically state, "And Daniel was exempted" or something similar. No, that's not what I seek, although it certainly would make things far easier to grasp. My worry is the conclusion you arrived at based on the limited text provided -- your claim that the "exemption is self-evident." I have read all you wrote (and I appreciate the effort), but I'm still not convinced. Yes, the king worshiped Daniel. Yes, he recognized Daniel's God as far superior. Therefore, based on these facts, Daniel was exempted. Not necessarily. He could have as well wanted Daniel killed and I'd be able to argue it.

2) Nebuchadnezzar's egotism: I hope you realise that all you have done here is speculate (again) about his person (and memory. What if he had an eidetic memory?). For someone who had had dreams interpreted for him in the past by a man with an apparent gift for such and who the king himself held in very high esteem, I seriously doubt that he would have forgotten something as crucial as a warning about him turning to an animal, even if it was 5 years after, no matter his preoccupations as king. This was his life at stake. He was, as you say, the greatest conqueror presiding over the greatest empire. All his life achievement -- imagine the shame, the ridicule. He wouldn't risk it that he would forget. It would certainly always be on his mind.

Why did he defy the warning 12 months later, you ask? I say, why did he defy the warning AT ALL? Perhaps, it was all just meant to be so that God's glory would be made manifest.

Anyway, it's becoming more and more obvious that we are hardly going to reach a common ground on this issue. You're right when you say your explanations come across to me as surmises. So I guess we have reached that point where we say, let's just agree to disagree.


---
By the way, I've been following the other thread in the family section on abuse victims that got out, and I must say that you're doing a wonderful job there. It's quite ironic that I find you similar to me in many ways, but it's a pity that it's our religious differences that has created an unnecessary divide. Anyways, keep up the good work!

Line-up: De Gea; Rafael, Ferdinand, Evans, Evra; Valencia, Carrick, Cleverley, Young; Rooney; van Persie.

Subs: Lindegaard, Anderson, Giggs, Hernandez, Nani, Welbeck, Scholes.

RuuDie: This paper round-up thing can be such a comic-relief

If there is any truth in this, I suggest dudes better steer clear of Coogar cuz Giggsy+Scholesy will definitely start this evening

Though more of a comic situation, Ferguson actually said he'd listen to her as he "wouldn't wanna upset her."
Link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/video/sport/football/4613364/Ill-talk-with-with-Fergie-Ive-been-a-fan-longer-than-him.html#ooid=djd3ZkNjoNHuNsRVzt2xBn-MGfIHZW9Y

^^^^It's okay.

By the way, I fully understand your point and can easily see why you'd arrive at that conclusion. My main grouse however, is that we are not provided with enough information to make such a leap. While that may indeed be the best explanation one might possibly give for Daniel's absence, I maintain that it remains just so -- an explanation of what likely transpired, and not what actually happened.

There is no doubt that the king recognized Daniel's God. The bone of contention is whether he actually DID exempt Daniel based on this. Very likely? Yes. But is it, really? We don't have enough information to tell for sure. The case of the Pharaoh readily comes to mind here. He had fully acknowledged the Israelites as God's chosen people. He had seen all the signs and wonders. He had experienced the plagues. One would certainly expect that he'd happily let them go in peace. Yet, we all know how his story ended.

The thing is, I am usually too careful to conclude on things definitively, even when they seem "obvious" or "commonsense" or when we can "easily fill the gap", which probably explains why I'm a skeptic in the first place. Your explanation may very well turn out to be the correct one after all, if more information becomes available to us. But going by the limited accounts in the book of Daniel - which happens to be our current reference point - I'd say we hold back for now and not jump into clear-cut conclusions just yet, no matter how tempting.

Hope you get my drift.

Sigh. You just presented the same argument all over again and responding to your post would mean repeating myself yet again. This is getting boring. Have a good day, sire.

Ihedinobi: ^^^ I'm quite busy these days and can't respond in a timely manner. For that I'm sorry. But I'm not sorry that your arguments annoy me. Which is another reason I am reticent in responding. Had you been an honest argumentator, sparring with you would be a great deal of fun and I might learn a thing or two. But you're here only to give the lie to the Bible and addressing people like you is fun for me only when I can call you what you really are.

Anyhow, I will give you a response tonight and see what you will do with it. Suffice to say that you are the one guilty of the very fallacious argument you charge me with. But, we'll see, won't we?

Tonight then, senor.

Take your time, Mister. And by the way, it's no use attempting to poison the well now. Anyone following this discourse can readily see the dishonest person here. Table out your argument, and for the umpteenth time, deal with the message and NOT the messenger.

Fellas, this is one awesomely done video. Enjoy!

[flash=450,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_auofqlRHAE[/flash]

plappville: Halloween is a demonic feast day, each year something tragidy goes with it.
Last yr a teenage hanged himself at the night of Halloween. There has been several terrible events since the celebration.
Maybe the West take it as fun, but the Devil recieves the glory at the end of it.

Er, in case you haven't noticed ma'am, something tragic happens every single day of the year REGARDLESS of what is being celebrated. Unless you have statistics to show that tragedies occur on Halloween's Day more than any other day in the year, I don't quite see any connection there at all. That a teenager hanged himself on the night of Halloween proves nothing. People - teenagers and adults alike - commit suicide all the time.

fairygeh: . Of course they would still have acted in a barbaric manner had it been those boys were still guilty,its wrong to kill anyone in such manner or in any manner whatsoever cos dey took the law into their hands,but the reason everyone wants justice is that these boys were innocent.and realy if those boys were armed robbers,i would still feel this same way and want everyone involved to be brought to book.cos no one deserves to die in dat manner.

@bolded, you're right, that's the point. No one deserves to die in that manner. So when you have some people wishing that the killers should also be killed IN THE SAME MANNER, then they are no different from the barbaric people that they condemn.

Ihedinobi: lol. It has been shown? Please feel free to point me to where it has.

Are you for real? lol. I'm beginning to get the feeling that you're only refusing to concede this point because you just cannot afford to lose an argument to a bloody heathen like myself. But I'll indulge you nonetheless.

Here's the answer you seek (for the third or fourth time now): Dan 1:20, Dan 2:49. Unless you can convince anyone here that:

(1) a king does not know/remember three standout men in his kingdom who were ten times better than any other person in the land (Ref: Daniel 1:20)
(2) a king does not know/remember governors in his own kingdom (Ref: Daniel 2:49)

I can't - for the life of me - understand why you're contesting this point at all.

Ihedinobi: Wouldn't you just love for me to doubt things I know and join you in your foolishness? Sorry, no can do. Now, if you say that the information is neither yes nor no, how do you explain Daniel 2:47 and 3:26,28-29?

@bolded: You just can't help it, can you? One more personal attack from you and I'm done with you on this thread (and it doesn't make a difference if you insert a smiley face after your insult).

Now moving on, how did you arrive at what you claim to know? How did you reach that conclusion? I can also deduce and conclude LOGICALLY from the information we have in Dan 3:2 that Daniel certainly was not in town during the whole saga. EVERY SINGLE OFFICIAL of the kingdom was required to be present at the image worship and there was NO indication that any exception was made. If there was, please point it out. So how come Daniel was not there then? Answer: He probably traveled out at the time or something. Very very reasonable conclusion. Now, would that make make me right? Probably. But then, I would only be so honest to present it as what I THINK, and not what IS.

Now, how do I explain Daniel 2:47 and 3:26,28-29, you ask? My simple explanation is that king Nebuchadnezzar was an egoistical king who didn't pay much attention to the things he spewed at times. Be reminded that we're talking about the same king, who, despite Daniel's interpretation of his dream where he was adequately informed/warned that his pride would see him turn to an animal, he still went ahead anyway to do the same thing he was warned about. This was a stubborn king. So why do you assume/expect that despite his public declaration of his recognition of Daniel's God, he would automatically be so humble/reasonable to respect his beliefs later on?

Have you seen the movie, Last King of Scotland? I see Daniel's relationship with Nebuchadnezzar as somewhat similar to the kind Idi Amin had with the Scottish doctor. Despite constantly professing how much he valued their friendship and telling everyone about his doctor friend, Idi Amin still did not fail to completely disregard and even threaten the doctor whenever he felt like it.

Ihedinobi: Fair answer would be: is it actually not so?

This doesn't make any sense. Why are you assuming a negative here? Your answer presupposes that we already know, and therefore, only questioning the possibility that we may be wrong. That is NOT the case here. We're trying to establish a fact so we cannot be assuming negatives. It's like someone coming to you claiming that there is water on Mars because of the presence of hydrogen and oxygen (hey, just an example), and you question that conclusion by asking "IS THAT REALLY SO?" And then the claimant retorts with, "IS IT REALLY NOT SO?". You don't establish truth claims with such tactics.

So my question still stands: even though the king knew and recognized Daniel's God, what makes you conclude that he DID exempt Daniel based on this? It does sound logical and safe to assume so (as in the case of the water on Mars claim), but is it ACTUALLY so? You keep appealing to commonsense^{(see #3 & #5 especially)} - the commonsense fallacy - which is a flawed way of reasoning.

Ihedinobi: Your argument reads: "the king should have remembered them because . . ." Now, explain his actions in the light of that argument. And if you dare to say you don't know, you lose the right to throw out my argument which, by the way, you yourself admit as logical.

See above for my explanation.

Also, being logical does not automatically translate to being correct. Your premises are quite faulty but the conclusion follows quite logically. Valid, but not sound.

Ihedinobi: Like I said, I await your evidence that he did know them. Everything you have submitted here is speculation and baseless speculation too as I have previously shown.

See above for the evidence. More so, I'm simply following your line of reasoning as you're the one mainly speculating here. I initially chose to stick to what we KNOW, but you chose to speculate about the king's memory among other things. Because he recognized Daniel's God means he MUST have exempted Daniel? Purely speculative conclusion.

Ihedinobi: lol. Explain the two bits of Scripture and we'll carry on from there.

I already did.

fairygeh: Well what separates him from the barbarism he is condemning is that while those 4boys were innocent and died for what they didnt do,these ones arent innocent and should pay for their sins.

Interesting logic you have here. So you mean those Aluu people would not be deemed barbaric if those 4 boys had been found guilty?

Okay, I'm back.

Ihedinobi: ^^^ lol. Perhaps I have the advantage of you? I know you, Purist, and your response surprises me none. You may never have dealt with me substantially in argument but I have seen you. By the way, you remind me of another atheist who attempted to disarm me saying that I also had my doubts (just like you did with the op). Silly guys. None of you comes into any philosophical or religious argument with a desire to test what you know or what new knowledge is being offered so that you can know the truth. You're always trying to prove God dead or non-existent and/or the Bible wrong and falling flat on your face for your trouble.

Now, it's quite interesting to see that you're the only one here constantly focusing on personality. What are you insecure about? What exactly is your problem? You don't know me even if you think you do. I'll also advise that you do not make the common mistake of lumping every unbeliever together as the same. I know it's more convenient for you to unload prior assumptions and preconceived notions on other people, after all, "they" all wear similar theological tags, but try to avoid it. Once again kind sir, please focus on the issues presented or I may have to abandon this argument.

Ihedinobi: I assure you, I do not meet people on different threads and deal with them differently on each thread. I deal with you according to the personality that I have come to associate with you wherever I find you. And the one with which I have associated you is not one I respect.

This is a really terrible way to engage in a discourse, and I'm quite frankly surprised that you'd even admit so publicly. I have engaged quite a number of people on this forum on different threads and different boards and I always try as much as possible to discuss issues on their own merit and not based on what I know or assume of the person previously unless the topics of discussion have similar contents, otherwise I may be missing out on more important things. I also believe that I made my intentions really clear from the beginning. It's a shame that you carry and transfer grudges from thread to thread. Very mature and Christ-like indeed.

Ihedinobi: Anyway, I have only one thing to point out in your "wonderful" comeback: that you don't just throw "what if's" around You employ what if's that agree with given information unless you can provide superior information.

I agree, but it's quite ironical that you're the one failing to follow up on this point.

Ihedinobi: My question was: did the king know who they were? The question is necessary because his actions indicated a lack of cognizance for their persons. If you want to prove a case, you'll have to show, NOT that the king may have known them but that he DID in fact know them.

It has been shown that the king DID know them. They were governors in his kingdom. What kind of king does not KNOW his own governors, especially considering the manner in which they got appointed to such position and the circumstances surrounding it?

Ihedinobi: There is no doubt that the king knew Daniel. There is also no real question why Daniel is not featured in that part of the story. The question really is, "considering that these three men were associated with Daniel, should they not have enjoyed Daniel's exemption?" Again, my answer is the question, "did the king know them?" To say that he should have, may have or might have is really not enough. If he knew them, he would have associated their faith with Daniel's and considered their God one with his, therefore they would have also been exempted. It's that simple.

The problem with this point is that you're working with the assumption that your 'exemption' explanation is the correct one. You deduced - and which I must admit is logical (but not necessarily valid) - based on the information we have available to us, that Daniel WAS exempted. That is NOT a factual statement. Was Daniel exempted? That question has only two possible answers - (1) Yes (2) No. Unfortunately, we're provided with NEITHER in the whole story, hence, the reason for this discourse in the first place. The best we can therefore do is attempt to extrapolate based on what we know. The explanation that Daniel was probably not in town at the time is just as valid as your own deductions that he must have been exempted. So why are you trying to force your own viewpoint as the correct one? The best you can and should do is say, "this is what I think" and we won't even be here debating at all. Unless you can point to a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS evidence that clearly shows that Daniel was INDEED exempted by the king from participating in the image worship.

Also, even though the king knew and recognized Daniel's God, what makes you conclude that he MUST HAVE exempted Daniel based on this? It does sound logical and safe to assume so, but is it ACTUALLY so? Everybody knows Nebuchadnezzar was an egomaniacal douche bag, at least, as portrayed in the bible anyway. So what makes you give him so much credit?

Ihedinobi: If you decide to make a case against Daniel's exemption, you'll be arguing from ignorance and silence, which atheists are pretty proficient at anyway. Daniel was exempt BECAUSE the king recognized his God as above every other god he acknowledged. His friends were not because the king did not associate them with Daniel's God. The proof lies in a side by side comparison of Daniel 2:47 and 3:28.

Ironically, you're the only one arguing from ignorance and silence here. What we DO know is that the king DID know Daniel's friends. You're the one ASSUMING that he must have failed to remember them, and so was not likely to grant them the same recognition as Daniel. This - based on logical deductions as well - has been shown to be unlikely because:

(1) These three guys along with Daniel were TEN TIMES BETTER than any other person in the land
(2) These three guys were GOVERNORS in his kingdom, thanks to Daniel's recommendation and endorsement

This should automatically make you realize that your exemption argument is quite faulty and is not likely to be the reason Daniel was conspicuously missing from the fiery furnace scene. These guys were close friends with Daniel who in turn was very well known to the king. Considering the fact that there's hardly any way that the king could have forgotten three STANDOUT men in his kingdom who he found to be exceptionally brilliant, in addition to the very likely possibility that Daniel must have constantly talked about his friends to the king assuming he spent a lot of time with him, I also assume that the king certainly must have taken special interest in these guys himself and must have endeavoured to know them personally and in the process, getting to know what they stand for.

Why then would he still go ahead to cast them in the furnace if he recognized that they served the same God as Daniel, you may ask? I'd say, perhaps he was just being the douche bag that he was.

Now, was Daniel even exempted by the king? We're not provided with that information anywhere in the bible. Thus, we can only make logical but not necessarily sound conclusions, so attempting to tell us WHY is completely moot.