₦airaland Forum

SNCOQ3:
That is a long way to say "I am a humanist".

Is God a humanist?

OlaAjia:
I'm guessing he's realised his folly somewhere along the line, but refuses to back down because it might chip a little chunk off his apologetic street cred. The only alternative is to keep wriggling his way out with even more spectacularly vague sentences. It is clear that he's just happy to dwell on the perfunctory.

Oh he is happy alright. Happy with his waffling and piss poor statements. He has realized his folly that is why he is so set against making any clarifications because he realizes that his God will be shown to be wrong.

SNCOQ3:
God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

In that case, I am morality.
Anything I do is in agreement with myself.

OlaAjia:
You didn't miss the verses, but you didn't answer my question either. It was simple: Is slavery objectively right or wrong according to your world view? Can you for once be direct and stop your prolix meanders and posturing. You've asserted that my worldview is wrong, it's fallacious, it's this and that...okay! Now, Leave my world view out of this and answer my question according to YOUR worldview.

Let's watch MrAnony1 run from answering a direct question.

MrAnony1:
Lol that was a very true assertion.


Lololol....It is comments like this that make me laugh....you know, when you resort to "you are either confused or dishonest" all the while evading the question which was originally asked you.

It doesn't look like you're laughing. It looks to me like you're simply showing your fear.

MrAnony1:
If you had been paying any attention, you would have noticed that I wasn't responding to your question rather since you claimed you couldn't understand how "good" could mean "that which we ought to do", I decided to use one of your questions where you used the word good to illustrate my point. Now please stop dancing around and answer me.

Do you think the following two questions mean the same thing? ...and if you think they mean different things then please state how so.

Is it good to command someone to kill their child?"

"Is commanding someone to kill their child something we ought to do?"

And here he comes with rephrasing a question he is supposed to answer. Once again, [size=14pt]I've not asked you to rephrase my question, I asked you to answer it.[/size] If rephrasing it helps you, go ahead but answer it. I already told you to use your own understanding of what good is to answer the question but once again, you didn't answer, but you rephrased my question.

MrAnony1:
Actually, no you did not answer my question.

I asked you:-

"Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?"

You replied that:-

"No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?"

To which I followed back with

"Lol I see, so why do you think neutron stars ought to be?"

The reason you don't want to continue down this line of inquiry is not because it is a "rabbit trail" as you claim rather it is because you know that
1. The moment you proffer any reason for why Neutron stars ought to be, you would have automatically conceded the point for which you claimed to disagree.
2. If you don't give a reason why you think Neutron stars ought to be, you will immediately be confronted with the fact that your claim is a mere assertion that has no value. Again this will affirm the position you claim to disagree with.

You are caught in a bind and so the only option you think is left to you is blowing up smoke by ignoring the question while accusing me of some sort of foul play.

You'll notice that I answered your question directly I put it in bold for you just so you don't forget that I actually answered it. I've decided not to answer your follow up question because you've so far not answered any of my questions but rephrased one of them. If you want my answer, then stop rephrasing my question and actually present your answers to my questions.

MrAnony1:
Lol...so you need clarification for an answer you believe to be clear?

I already told you that your answer wasn't clear.

MrAnony1:
Lol....who said I was afraid? You now assume motives too?

You don't have to say it. Your responses already show it. You've tried so hard not to answer direct questions that it shows your fear of actually presenting an answer.

MrAnony1:
Lol...the Idea has already been presented successfully. It is you who is looking for an excuse to reject it.

If it has been presented successfully, then use that presentation to answer my questions rather than rephrasing one of them.

MrAnony1:
Ok so now you are officially claiming I am being vague? Or this is not a claim too?

That isn't a claim, you've demonstrated it by not answering simple and direct questions.

MrAnony1:
Yikes!

Yes I'm that good.

MrAnony1:
Lololol....You claim to ask clear questions yet you cannot tell if the way it was rephrased maintains or destroys the meaning of your question? I too wonder whether you are afraid that any attempt to clarify your questions will expose some dubious motive you might be hiding.

You understood the question well enough to rephrase it but you won't answer the original one? This tells me you're not clarifying it, but you're simply failing to be dishonest. Once again, don't rephrase it, answer it.

MrAnony1:
So here again are the questions you've run from....

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?

Asked and answered. Your phrase "that which we ought to do" requires clarification.

MrAnony1:
2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

As long as you will not answer me clearly and comprehensively, I will not answer you.

Asked and answered. No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?

[size=14pt]So, here again are the questions you've run from.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Don't rephrase them, don't ignore them, just answer them. That is the first step in clarification about what you're trying to say and showing that you're trying to have an honest conversation.[/size]

MrAnony1:
Actually, no you haven't you have only danced around them.

Another false assertion.

MrAnony1:
Lololol...I see.

Let's take one of your questions for instance.

"2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child?"

Can this question equally be expressed as

"Is commanding someone to kill their child something we ought to do?"

If your question doesn't mean the same as the above then perhaps you mean something else by your question, which you are welcome to clarify.
On the other hand if the two questions mean the same thing then I wonder what exactly it is that you don't understand by the definition of good. You may want to explain that too.

This is why I say you're a poor apologist. I presented you with several questions you were supposed to answer. Instead, you've decided to rephrase one of them. This means you're either confused about what you're to do or you're deliberately trying to be dishonest. You just keep getting caught.

I didn't ask you to rephrase my question, I asked you to answer it. Any one with the ability to understand communication can tell the difference between rephrasing a question and answering it. Note that you have so far failed to give a single answer to the same question asked several times already.

MrAnony1:
Lol I see, so why do you think neutron stars ought to be?

Why don't you answer my questions before going down this rabbit trail? Or did I not answer your question on your oughts and what not?

MrAnony1:
That you claim an answer is vague does not make it vague. My answer is as clear as can possibly be.

It isn't a claim that the answer is vague, it is a request for you to clarify your response by answering questions that are direct and phrased simply. I still wonder why you're afraid of answering direct questions. What is clear so far is that you're using a lot of words to say nothing about what good is. It appears that you can't even use your own idea of goodness to answer direct questions. In that case, what is the use of the idea you're failing to present?

MrAnony1:
There are no clarifications needed. I have helped you as best as I can even using the example of your question above.

Now you're refusing to clarify your vague terms when asked. I must really bring out the fear of exposure in you. If you don't think clarifications are needed, then answer the questions rather than rephrasing any of them. Give direct answers.
You've done nothing more than to rephrase a question you were asked to answer. If you're asked; does the moon come up at night? Rephrasing the question as; is the moon coming up at night something we should expect? Doesn't answer the question.

So, here again are the questions you've run from.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Don't rephrase them, don't ignore them, just answer them. That is the first step in clarification about what you're trying to say and showing that you're trying to have an honest conversation.

MrAnony1:
. . . .

A car is a good or bad car depending on whether or not it functions according to the intents for its maker, A man is good or bad man depending on whether or not he acts according to the intents of his maker. If man has no maker, then there is no objectively right way he ought to be or function.

. . . .

Who is man's maker and what is this maker's intent?

MrAnony1:
Lololol...this guy you are funny.

First you refuse to answer direct questions then you throw out multiple questions and claim that I am afraid of answering them. That won't work.

I have answered all your questions and asked you for clarifications when necessary but you just keep trying not to clarify anything. That is not a serious approach.

MrAnony1:
The questions I asked you still remain.

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?

I do not agree because I don't understand what you mean by "that which we ought to do" since you're using it in an unspecified way to mean what is good. I've asked you several times to clarify that phrase but you've refused. If you can clarify that phrase, then I'll be able to answer your question.

MrAnony1:
2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

No I do not agree. Neutron stars ought to be but what is their purpose?

MrAnony1:
If you will not answer me, I will not answer you.

I have answered your questions directly yet again. In fact, one of them requires you to clarify your own statements but you've done your best to be as vague as possible.

Now, please answer my own questions directly using your own ideas and make the necessary clarifications.

MrAnony1:
Lolololol...So you are saying that the phrase "that which we ought to do" relies on the word "good" by being vague How does something rely on another by being vague? You seem very confused my friend. Let

It doesn't rely on it, according to you, that vague phrase means the same as good. It does it when you define good the way you did.

MrAnony1:
By the way, there is absolutely nothing vague about that answer. It is exactly what good is and I will illustrate it for you using your example below.

Go ahead.

MrAnony1:
Lololol...first of all my argument does not hinge on the question you asked above because it doesn't seek a definition but an example.

Furthermore, the fact that your question can easily be rephrased as "ought we to command someone to kill their child?" clearly shows that "Good is that which we ought to do.

It is similar to how "Is this shape a triangle?" can equally be expressed as "Is this a three sided closed shape?"

In fact to define good as "it is good to command someone to kill their child" is a classic example of a circular definition because the phrase "it is good to command someone to kill their child" relies on a prior knowledge of the word "good" which is being defined.

Clearly you are quite confused about what a circular definition means.

Wow. All this to avoid answering a simple and direct question? I didn't say the example defines what good is. I'm asking you if it is good to command someone to kill their child. Use whatever definition of good you want to use to answer the question starting with a yes or no. Just be ready to justify it so for clarity, I'll ask again. Is it good to command someone to kill their child?

MrAnony1:
I am quite clear that it is that which we ought to do

And what is that which we ought to do?

MrAnony1:
Well, I don't think so.

Then explain what this objective way to live is.

MrAnony1:
So you quoted this:

"Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it."

...and you got from it a demand to agree with me before proceeding. Well it is clear to everyone reading that you are simply lying. Anyone who can read can clearly see that I asked you whether you agree and if you don't, give logically coherent reasons why not. . . .Or maybe you read it as a compulsory demand to agree with me because you can't think of any logically coherent reason why it isn't true?

It is a demand to agree with you otherwise you will not clearly present your argument. I don't have to agree with your statement before you can expatiate on its core assumptions. This is elementary in having a discussion.

MrAnony1:
I did not say that you said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. I said that you said that I said that everyone needs to do a particular thing. . . .and I am asking you to show how you got that from the statement you were responding to.

It would be easier for you to clarify your statement by simply saying what it is that everyone needs to do.

MrAnony1:
Lolololol....I never said prove me wrong otherwise my point stands. neither did I say that there is an objective way we ought to live. I said that "if there are objectively good and bad actions, then there is an objective way in which we ought to live". Please stop putting words in my mouth.

You implied it. Otherwise you can explain your point without needing me to prove you wrong so go ahead and do that. So there isn't an objective way we ought to live? Then what is all your talk about what we ought to do and its objectivity? I've simply clarified what you've said if you disagree with my clarifications, then make your statements clearer rather than wailing and repeating your unclear statements.

MrAnony1:
How can there be a right way for humans to live if there is no purpose for human existence? How exactly does that work?

It works based on the sort of beings humans are. e.g humans don't live by drinking battery acid.

MrAnony1:
There is no point in answering this question if you keep refusing to answer whether or not it being evil to enslave humans means that we ought not to do it.

Actually that is the whole point. It will show whether or not on some level we are even using similar ideas of what it means to be good. Your fear of answering that direct and simple question shows that you're happy making vague statements and have no intention of applying your poor ideas to the real world. If you were serious, you'd have used your definition of good whatever it is to give a direct answer to a direct moral question.

MrAnony1:
Since you systematically reject everyone who claims to know, why don't you read the gospels to find out for yourself? Or aren't you the skeptical one who investigates claims? Why so close-minded when it comes to finding out what true Christianity is?

This is another example of your vagueness. You claim to know the one true religion. I directly ask you what it is and you run. I've read the Gospels and they've not helped me answer the question. You've read the Gospels and have arrived at an answer. What is your answer? Just stop panicking for a second and tell me what you claim to already know.

MrAnony1:
But drinking battery acid is not necessarily a moral problem unless you believe that all physical health issues are necessarily moral issues. Do you?

I did not say it was a moral problem. I said I can tell just as I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you tell whether or not it helps or harms humans?

MrAnony1:
Actually I have answered all your questions. The fact that you don't like my answers doesn't make them any less answers.

No you've not answered any of my questions. I will draw up a list and see if you'll answer them in your next response.

MrAnony1:
I haven't

You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying whether or not you think "good is that which we ought to do" If you can't say whether or not you agree with the definition of what good is, then I don't know what you mean when you say for instance "is it good to enslave people". Try not to run and challenge your fears.

Once again you're asking me to agree with your entire argument that rests on that vague phrase before you'll consider anything. This is a lazy approach. What word do you find confusing in the question "Is it good to enslave people?"
Anyway, here is the list of direct questions that I'd like you to answer using your own definition of what good is. Note that whether or not I agree with your definition doesn't stop you from answering them.

1. What does the phrase "that which we ought to do" mean? Please clarify with examples.
2. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? I think this can be answered with a yes or no with a brief explanation of course.
3. What is the objective way to live?
4. Is it evil to enslave other humans?
5. Is it evil to kill people at the whims of another person?
6. Is it evil to simply torture the vast majority of humans?
7. What is the correct sect of Christianity if at all it exists?

Remember, you're free to use your own understanding of good in giving direct answers to these questions.

MrAnony1:
How does the definition "that which we ought to do" rely directly or indirectly on the term "Good" which is being defined?

It does this by your vagueness on what you mean by the phrase "that which we ought to do".

MrAnony1:
Good is axiomatically that which we ought to do . . . . or do you know of anything that is good but ought not to be done?

And here you show that your definition of "good" relies on the phrase "that which we ought to do". Well I'll let you decide. Is it good to command someone to kill their child? Please don't run from this question. Your entire argument hinges on it.

MrAnony1:
Lol....I see. Please could you explain to me exactly what I am supposed to be confused about.

What you mean by good.

MrAnony1:
I am not "hedging with the if" The statement remains what it is. Do you think it is true or not?

I think it is meaningless until you can explain what this objective way to live is.

MrAnony1:
I am quite sure I asked you if you agree with my premise or not, please show where I asked you to agree with me before I present my argument.

Where you said this:

MrAnony1:
Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it.

MrAnony1:
Wow I wonder how you got "everyone needs to do a particular thing" from that statement, I said:

"IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live."

I asked you if you agreed with the above premise and to give reasons if you disagree. Please stop dancing around and accusing me of things I haven't said.

That is no a premise, that is your entire argument. Secondly, you've misquoted me. I did not say everyone needs to do a particular thing. Thirdly, if you understand that argument, you'll see that I've captured what you're saying. If you think I've misrepresented you, then you're welcome to clarify your statement.

MrAnony1:
No I did not say that I am right because you haven't proved me wrong, You are the one who thinks that I need to provide reasons why if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. I don't see why I have to give reasons for something so obvious.

That is actually what you're saying when you're asking me to prove you wrong otherwise your point stands. So far, I've asked you to show that there is some objective way that we ought to live but so far, you've not done that. Instead you've started confusing yourself.

MrAnony1:
Really? How so?

Even if there is no cosmic purpose for human existence, there can still be right ways for humans to live.

MrAnony1:
Is it evil because you say so? Or is it evil because of some other reason independent of your opinion? and if so, what reason would that be?

I see you're on a 200 question roll. Let's simplify things by you saying whether or not it is evil to enslave other humans, to kill people at the whims of some other person or torture the vast majority of humans. Then we can take it a step at a time.

MrAnony1:
Lol, I see. So you have refused to find out for yourself. Ok . . . did I mention how much I admire your open-mindedness.

Since you know, why don't you tell me the correct sect of Christianity?

MrAnony1:
In other words you haven't answered my question about whether or not you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm.

I have an objective method of differentiating. Whether or not you accept it is up to you. After all, the evidence for evolution is objective but creationists and others don't accept it. As I said, I can tell whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Can you?

MrAnony1:
Lololololol...I really appreciate all your "direct answers" which consist of bluntly refusing to answer the questions asked of you and while accusing me of saying what I did not say.

Again, I've answered your questions but so far, you've not answered any of my questions but you've tried to play 200 questions. That too won't work. You can move this discussion forward by clearly saying what you think "that which we ought to do" actually refers to with some actual examples. I've given you examples but you've tried to run from them. Try not to run and challenge your fears.

MrAnony1:
Of course, isolate the first sentence in a 200 word answer and claim that it ignores your question. By the way, what is a circular definition and how does how I define good fit that description?

Circular definition: A definition relying directly or indirectly on the term being defined.
Your phrase "that which we ought to do" is very vague because you have to actually spell out what it is that we ought to do and explain that it is the same for everyone if you wish to universalize the concept of the good.
Now will you try to clarify what you mean by good?

MrAnony1: This is like asking me how I know that a triangle has three sides. It is a senseless question. . . .or perhaps you don't know the meaning of "by definition"

This is a senseless response. A triangle axiomatically has three sides. Goodness is not axiomatic. If you wish to make it axiomatic, then you have to do the work required.

MrAnony1: I don't see what you see

That's because you're blinded by your confusion.

MrAnony1: IF there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live. (Note the IF)

Don't bother hedging with the "if". Tell me what this objective way in which we ought to live is. I would prefer it if you could actually spell it out.

MrAnony1: Before we proceed to where the purpose comes from, I will need to know if you agree with the statement and if you don't, please explain how it is logically coherent to say that you ought to do something that has no purpose for doing it.

This is a silly request. You're asking me to agree with you before you even present your argument. Secondly, you request for my explanation is useless because you're the one stating that everyone ought to do some particular thing not me. This means you're asking me to make your argument for you. And that is one of the signs of intellectual laziness.
So, you can actually proceed to explain where this purpose comes from for us to examine whether or not it is valid. Who knows, if I think it is valid, then I may take the next step.

MrAnony1: A mere assertion you say...why don't you disprove it by showing how it is false to say that if there is an objective way in which we ought to live then there must be a purpose for which we live.

You have successfully committed the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You're saying that you're right because I haven't proved you to be wrong. That is the wrong way to go about it. You're supposed to show you're right by actually demonstrating your reasons.

MrAnony1: If there is no purpose for which we exist, then there is no objectively right way for us to live our lives.

Your conclusion does not follow from the premise.

MrAnony1: How can the creator be evil if good is that which we ought to do and that which we ought to do depends on the purposes of the one who created us?

If this creator wants humans to enslave other humans, if this creator wants humans to kill at his whim, if this creator wants the vast majority of humans to be tortured, I'd say it is pretty evil.

MrAnony1: You can always read about Christ in the Gospels to understand what it means to be Christlike and if the "multiple contradictory sects" you talk about are Christlike.

The multiple sects are real and they read about Christ in the gospels so there's no point in me doing that. It is in fact you who should do that and tell me who the correct sect is. After all, Roman Catholicism is very different from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society with is also very different from the Seventh Day Adventist Church. You can tell me which if any of them is correct after you have read your Bible.

MrAnony1: I see, so do you have an objective method of differentiating between help and harm? Or is it based on your subjective opinion?

I have a method that is as good as how we know whether or not drinking battery acid helps or harms. Whether you think it is objective or subjective is up for discussion. But be aware that pursuing that discussion will require you to present your own ideas.

MrAnony1: I have already.

No you've not. You're as usual danced around and avoided directly answering any questions. You'll notice that I on the other hand have directly answered your questions.

NativeBoy: It's also interesting to note that all the schools, the great bastions of education all over the world were built by churches. Not only schools, but hospitals. Yet, religion is anti-progress?

This is an example of the genetic fallacy. The fact that churches build schools doesn't mean they weren't anti-progress. Secondly, churches had all the money and virtually ran the countries so of course they'll be the ones to build schools. Today, schools are generally built by governments.

davidylan: Its simple mob mentality that i have come to expect. We've gone over 3 pages and not once has anybody even bothered to say... here is a scientific peer-reviewed article providing irrefutable proof for evolution. All i read is the same yawn-inducing faux outrage that anyone dared question the hallowed myth called evolution. It surely cant be that hard to shut me down with the information no?

It is posts like this that make me wonder whether or not you're actually as qualified as you say. You're looking for "a scientific peer-reviewed article providing irrefutable proof for evolution"? Is this a serious request? Darwin had to write an entire book. Other scientists have written entire books and you're looking for a single peer-reviewed article that brings together evidence from biogeography to anatomy all the way down to genetics? I'm sorry but this isn't a serious request from someone who knows what they're talking about.

As I've said, Wikipedia is a good place to start and since I'm currently in a giving mood, I'll happily walk you through some of the evidence provided in this Wikipedia article. Don't forget that the articles have links to references.

Don't like Wikipedia, there's talkorigins.org.

davidylan: Silly, if you're interested email me and i will show you a link to my school, pubmed author listing and my journal peer reviewer credentials. Unlike most of you, i actually walk the walk and do not require wikipedia articles to get by.

I was going to take you up on that offer but frankly it will still be irrelevant here since I still won't be able to verify who it is that I'm talking to without some sort of identity document. For some reason, you're trying to rely heavily on credentials while failing in the most important aspect which is what you actually say.
You claim to walk the walk but so far, those of us "requiring Wikipedia articles to get by" still keep demontrating your fallacies and misinformation.

davidylan: Neither is a wikipedia article peer-reviewed scientifically accurate information. I'm sure you knew that already.

That doesn't mean it is "copy/pasted unverified indefensible trolling for evolution". Would you like me to take you through the article and you show me the copy/pasted unverified information that is merely trolling for evolution?

Secondly, would you accept peer-reviewed scientifically accurate information if it goes against your religious beliefs?

plaetton: Yeah Bros.
I have a bright young niece who dropped psychology in University because she said it embarrassed her faith and made her question her beliefs.

Looks like psychology was being taught properly at that university.

Peterken05: it is so glaring that people can believe and commit atrocities all in the name of religion.

If a person eats a bread and calls it elvis presely body, we would think its crazy right? But if a bread is distributed in church and it is called jesus body, we call it holy communium.

This summarizes it perfeectly.

I wonder how much his congregation paid for the party. Although neither Jesus nor Paul apparently celebrated their birthdays.

wiegraf: This

How can one claim to be a scientist yet state this?! It completely befuddles me. No amount of poetry can describe the state of consternation this harebrained statement, from a supposedly trained pro, evokes from me. A trained biologist, a role model in an environment that desperately needs descent role models, looking others square in the eye and telling them 'there's no evidence for evolution'....

Different thing to contest it. Though foo.lish in this case, frankly, considering the sheer amount of evidence available, from all corners, that he has been well exposed to. That would at least be somewhat palatable. No, instead we get "LALALALALA evolution is silly because I'm not a banana". And there is no evidence for it? Really??

I could claim javascript is a great, huge pile of the most finely crafted, consummate dog s.hit (and many would agree), specially designed by some sadistic skydaddy to troll mortals, but I cannot deny it's a scripting language. Ruby, whose creator happens to be a (somewhat) born again xtian/mormon (I forget) and uses paradigms that are not the default of the trypical, making it alien to many not trained to think in that way. Assuming he also went all re.tard and also added that god sent gabriel to him with instructions on how to design it, that stops Ruby from being a programming language how?

Yet here we are. With a driver claiming a honda is not a car. Yet his mule, and a supposedly talking mule at that (ID), is.

Which kind scientist be dis?! Where the f is the professionalism here?!?

PhD my nyash. Fing disgrace

Man, those drugs are leaving my system

One of the best things about anonymous forums is that anyone can claim to be anything they want. Maybe he has a degree but it could be from a non-accredited school like Dr. Dino's school. Or he could just be making stuff up in order to brow beat others into thinking that they're not qualified to handle his special brand of wrong information.

Yields: When there are discrepancies between what they preach and what the word of God says.

There's a difference between what Jesus preached and what the word of God said in the Old Testament.

davidylan: I've been presented with copy/pasted unverified indefensible trolling for evolution several times on this forum. I have been involved in the biological sciences since 2005, i have come across arguments in defense of evolution, i have however never come across definitive proof for evolution.

Come now. I'm sure the Wikipedia article is much more than "copy/pasted unverified indefensible trolling for evolution".

Your denial of the evidence for evolution and your request for a "definitive proof for evolution" make me suspicious of the sort of involvement you've had in the biological sciences since 2005.

davidylan: absolutely true and i have not insinuated that by any means.

So you think the theory may be correct.

davidylan: I agree that religion does play a part in Africa's backwardness, i am however unwilling to believe the unproven myth that we would be as developed as Japan if people like you were in the majority.

Your acceptance of the role played by religion is a large enough step. If people generally like me were in the majority, I'd say things would be much better.

davidylan: You should ask peterken. Seems like you dont read before responding to posts.

I read your post and you sounded like you knew something.

davidylan: You can shake your neck while you're at it... if evolution were true, you would have filled this place with the evidence. The fact that you dont know speaks volumes to anyone with a brain cell.

Come now. You've been presented with evidence for evolution several times on this forum. And if you actually do have a PhD in the biological sciences, you'll have encoutered it. Your task if you would like to undertake it would be to demonstrate that the evidence you've been presented was wrong.

davidylan: I live in the US, i got my phd in the US, i do real stuff (whatever the heck that means), i do real molecular biology, i have published in at least three journals with over 150 citations... i still do not believe in evolution and there are millions like me.

The fact that you don't accept the scientific theory doesn't make the theory wrong you know. People planted according to seasons even when they didn't know that the reason for seasons was the earth's tilt.

davidylan: So your point is? Africa is not backward because of religion, it is backward because of brainless people like you who merely copy the theories others tell you is true without bothering to think for yourself.

Actually, I would say religion plays a large part in Africa's backwardness. How much thinking would have led Africans to determine that Ebola was caused by a virus?

davidylan: so many grammatical errors here... you should not be calling others dumb for that reason alone.

Actually a smart, curious student of science would want to know why a professor of genetics does not believe in the theory of evolution, which is basically a theory in the origin of genetics. But of course that would be assuming that you can even think at all.

Now you've got me. I'm curious. Who is this professor of genetics and why doesn't this person accept the theory of evolution? Would that be the same reason why you don't accept it?

MrAnony1: First of all, I must point out that that which is good is by definition that which we ought to do.

Looks like you're going for a circular definition here that thoroughly ignores my question. How do you know that what you ought to do is good? All I see you doing is trying to dance around relating goodness to something having to do with human beings.

MrAnony1: For it to be true that there are certain things which we ought to do, then it must be true that there is a purpose for which we exist. If it is true that there is a purpose for which we exist, then it must be true that we are designed for that which occurs by chance and not by design cannot be said to have a purpose for it's existence and as a result it cannot be said it ought to act in a certain way and therefore no action it engages in can possibly be either good or evil.

Where does this "purpose for which we exist" come from? Looks to me like another one of your mere assertions that you've decided to hang everything on. Who even says that there is a "purpose for which we exist"?

MrAnony1: In the question of that which is good, it is impossible to ignore the existence of a Creator. In other words for good to exist in an objective sense, the Creator must necessarily exist.

I don't see how the existence of this creator of yours makes any difference. e.g What if the creator is evil?

MrAnony1: Now that said, I know an action or instruction is good based on how well it conforms to the will and the purpose of the Creator (a.k.a God) as revealed to us via His Word.

Now we're getting somewhere. I take it that you know what the Christian God's will and purpose are and you think you can determine what it is from the Bible that is so unclear that it has allowed multiple even contradictory sects?

MrAnony1: God has set for us an example to follow in the person of Jesus Christ. Anything that is Christlike is good while anything that is unChristlike is evil.

With this line, you've successfully not answered any question. What is Christlike? Is it Christlike to command a genocide? Is it Christlike to command that children be killed? Is it Christlike to leave one's family for the sake of some preacher?

MrAnony1: Now, over to you; how do you know whether or not a certain action or instruction is good?

I know based on whether or not its effects generally help or harm people. I hope you'll be able to give concrete responses to the issues I've raised above.

MrAnony1: Why do good? Because good is what we were created to do. It is the purpose for which we were designed (see Ephesians 2:10)

I'll ignore the mere assertion that humans were created and the fallacious argument from authority in presenting a random quote in a book. In order to be sure that what is being discussed is the same, how do you know whether or not a certain action or instruction is good?

oluwabambam: I was just reading a post on Nairaland some minutes ago where the topic was on what constitutes a God-fearing individual. Someone commented adding that he/she is an atheist and that got me wondering. I have been seeing so many atheists on social media in Nigeria and it bothers me why there are so many of them nowadays. Are people now saying that there is no God? Do people mean that they don't believe in the creator of the universe? How did they come into existence if they don't believe in God. God created us all and this is what the Bible says. What is it with all these atheists? I want to understand why anyone would come to the conclusion that there is no God. It baffles me seriously. I need answers.

What. Are you scared? You've asked several questions based on deep misconceptions. You'll first need to address those misconceptions in order to better phrase your questions. e.g

oluwabambam: Are people now saying that there is no God?

Atheists don't necessarily say there is no God.

oluwabambam: Do people mean that they don't believe in the creator of the universe?

Your assumption that your God created the universe is faulty.

oluwabambam: How did they come into existence if they don't believe in God.

The assumption that believing in your God leads to someone's existence is faulty.

oluwabambam: God created us all and this is what the Bible says.

Your assumption that because something is written in the Bible, it must be true is also faulty. This is why you need to first address these more fundamental flaws in order to understand something about the atheist point of view

If this is true, I wonder how much money these criminals contributed to his ministry. But as expected, his willing defenders will back him up till they die.

DeepSight: Lol so you actually check the mentions. You have time.
Anyway noted.



Olodo. Who believes in such. Please just get lost. The shallow stupidity of you people is nauseating.

One!

@DeepSight

Not that this topic interests me, but just a heads up. If you don't want me to see a topic, simply refrain from calling me because with the new mentions feature, if you say my name I'll see it. I guess what I'll do is that if you call my name three times, then I may just turn up and burn you as I usually do. Otherwise, I'll just engage with topics that interest me. Though that is becoming rarer.

Anyway, good luck with your tantra magic.