₦airaland Forum

Kemistri4:
Can anyone on nairaland truthfully say he/she left the university a virgin?


Let's hear from you my people

FreeStuffsNG:
Hmmm.. You better go and face your studies and life so that one day newspapers will even be using your "no comment" to sell their newspapers.

The two people you hate; one(Dr Pantami) has a PhD no one is questioning and the other one you hate( Gen. Buhari) because he is not also from your tribe, is a war veteran and reached the pinnacle of his career and 30 years after still returned to be a President.

Achievers like Pantami and PMB you hate did not waste their prime idlying away on the internet and cowardly hiding behind a keyboard to make hate speeches and insult folks old enough to be your grandparents.

I hope you will one day look back, read your comments and realize that every insult you threw online actually manifested in your life so you can tell others who may want to toe your bad path not to do it
Here's free book on business ideas & money sources directory for you,it's 100% free! https://www.nairaland.com/6666800/looking-business-ideas-money-fund. Cheers.

budaatum:
The totality of Buda is whatever buda has become at the exact moment that you enquire, and your own ability to see totalities instead of perhaps just the physical body or the soul.

At the moment, buda consists of arms and legs and kidney and spleen and lungs, and mind too, and so far as you are concerned, the words of buda that you read, and removing or replacing any one of them in particular will still be buda even if buda looses buda's mind or is rotting six feet deep, you will point to buda and say that is this particular totality of buda. At least depending on how narrow the focus is, of course.

We have a thread on here about replacing the parts of a ship, my Lord might remember.

NNTR:

---

---

---

---

---

... and TenQ 110% absolutely right, in that, the soul, is you and vice versa

It is not a case of 'maybe "soul" is another word for "you." Or "I" . . . or "me"' but it is a case of, your soul, is you. You are soul. Soul are you. Yes, quintessentially speaking, soul is you. Your self, is your soul and vice versa, meaning your soul is yourself, its you.

_{Personal text: Jesus is not a theologian. He is God who told stories.}

budaatum:
I don't particularly have theories of my own regarding things like souls, to be honest, though I have, for sake of knowing, studied some literature on the subject, but I take it like I do "inasmuch as I have considered things I see before me instead of the crap I choose to believe inside my own head".

Take physical you, TenQ, as in, the TenQ who has presented to my awareness. Are you not sufficiently mysterious enough for me to be insufficiently informed about you so as to delve deeper so I know you more? Now imagine I ignore physical TenQ and start looking for TenQ's soul and you might see how insufficiently informed generalisations might make one seem.

That said, I'm sure its because I do not have a soul detecting analyser or whatever it might be called. My bad. Though, ignoring physical TenQ for TenQ's soul seems very rude and disrespectful to TenQ, to me, because it would mean I have insufficiently considered the physical TenQ you've presented.

budaatum:
Might all these not be a description of your
very self, is precisely my point TenQ, which is why I am doing "Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic" of your point in contrast to mine which I am presenting but which you seem to not see not to talk of consider.

budaatum:
Note that nowhere does it say philosophers "generalise from insufficient information", but that they do the opposite and go questioning.

budaatum:
I believe I did answer your question and you are refusing to accept it is what I think.

budaatum:
That totality of buda is what is being presented to you while it seems you are trying to split buda into aspects of a Brain, Your Mind, Your Soul and Your Body.

budaatum:
Is it? Say, I have knowledge of say, numbers up to a relative 100, is that sufficient information about numbers? And what would you think a person with relative knowledge of a thousand or ten thousand or fractions or decimals say of me when I claim my relative knowledge of 100 is sufficient?

budaatum:
I believe this your statement is be based on insufficient information/knowledge.

LordReed:
The constituted authority also changes so no sir, there is nothing like absolute morality.

BTW glad you agree the law can and does change so again you've checkmated yourself.

budaatum:
Like beauty, right? In the eyes of you the beholder?

Those seeking knowledge don't normally work that way, and are more willing to consider what makes perfect sense to others, and why.

LordReed:
Then you should have reiterated your stance. Meanwhile here you are debating about morality so how am supposed to have taken you seriously that you aren't here for a debate?

budaatum:
Note that nowhere does it say philosophers "generalise from insufficient information", but that they do the opposite and go questioning.

LordReed:
That was about your fifth response. You should have made it the first and saved me the trouble.

LordReed:
And again there is nothing like that as long as there isn't a singular source for morality. What part of that don't you understand?

Also the fact that any of those laws can be revised and changed means they are not absolute.

budaatum:
I do not think philosophers call themselves scientists, but correct me if I am wrong.

budaatum:
Just as any one bit of an elephant is not the elephant so is buda the totality of a physical being and my entire time accumulating knowledge and experiences etc, and it is that totality that feels, as opposed to any one aspect feeling for me.

Deepsight. You might note why my "love for" might differ to that of someone else.

budaatum:
Are you stating what you have chosen to believe is the truth, TenQ?

LordReed:
You should have just said you believe by faith instead of the rigmarole and waste of time.

LordReed:
If god is not the source of all morality then there is no such thing as the objective morality you are going on about. You just checkmated yourself.

TenQ:
I hope you know that when the government says that the speed limit in a particular road is 30km/h, it is a form of objective moral source. Objective source of morality is NOT exclusive to God.

TenQ:
It seems you do not understand the subject of objective molarity. Objective morality is ABSOLUTE as it is not debatable. Objective morality can be set both by God or a governing authority. Subjective morality can vary from one person to another as it is NOT absolute.
Objective morality does not stem from the fact that it can be logically justified. No! It simply means that it is a take it or leave it kind of law: absolute in nature.

budaatum:
Soul doesn't appear in science at all, as far as I know, so it was rather odd that TenQ wants to discuss it scientifically.

But I guess that's what those who generalise on insufficient information would do, thinking others might not know any better.

LordReed:
Actually it is you who doesn't understand. There is no such thing as absolute morality nor is there objective morality after fashion you are talking about. If there was such a thing all governments would have the same basis for for their laws and all laws would be uniform but that is not what we see at all. There are different basis for different national laws for the same crimes. This is because morality is derivative and has no singular source.



This is called divine command which of course has no effect on how I view morality. You are welcome to follow your "divine" command but it is not the basis for all morality.

LordReed:
Now provide evidence that this is the case for humans, that their minds are transferred somewhere else.

TenQ:
......

For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

LordReed:
Then why are you using the analogy? You are suggesting that the written code for software is the same as the actual program running in a machine. What is the point of the analogy really?

You said the soul is detachable so what does it mean to be detachable if not that it can survive outside the body?

TenQ:
1. For Christians then, all animals have their souls and when they die, they cease to exist.
2. Humans on the other hand have in addition their spirit body: such that when they die, their soul even though disconnected from their body is not disconnected from their spirit body.
3. I am not saying this that you might agree with it: I am just stating how Christians relate to the concept of body, soul and spirit. God Himself is a Spirit! Angels, Demons too are spirits who all have their unique souls/personalities.

budaatum:
I do have a problem using mind and soul synonymously because they are not synonyms at all. Nor does my soul feel my emotions for me. I feel my emotions myself!

budaatum:
Wrong, TenQ. buda has never seen God but understands what people mean by God.


Last time I checked, a theory based on insufficient information is not presented as fact, but as a start point for seeking facts, unlike you who present a generalisation based on insufficient information as fact.


When scientists discuss how the universe began, they state that that is as far as they can determine, and they are open to new discoveries. You TenQ, however, present generalisations based on insufficient evidence as facts.

I have not read your responses to others, but I do expect the scientists amongst them to disagree with you a lot on souls.

killyaselfie:
Lol. What a jackass.

killyaselfie:
Christ fucking Jesus, you haven’t shown any equivalence of anything!!

killyaselfie:
The issue is about the definition of a soul, not computers. You were asked about the nature or composition of a soul along with its location but you start asking about HDD, CPU,GPU and then claim someone can’t ”objectively answer a simple question”. That person be you.

You’re the one with the analogy that doesn’t make sense and instead of explaining what a soul is you keep talking about software.

Why don’t you consult google then come back and explain the soul. Not comouter software but soul.


This is not a conversation with your fellow Christians or other religious types where you assume nonsense, make unfounded claims, and nod in agreement with each other

LordReed:
LoL see why I said you misunderstand. It is you who is claiming the mind can be independent of the body not me. You are the ones who believe in concepts such as soul and an afterlife.

LordReed:
So if I write down my thoughts the paper has become my mind?