₦airaland Forum

Uyi Iredia: '. . . ridiculous statement . . .' says the clown. Explain how gravity attracts and how magnetism attracts or repels. If you understand the physics as you suggest, present simple explanations here on gravity and magnetism, I'll assume they are immaterial unless you state otherwise.

Another demonstration of your failure of comprehension.

I said:

thehomer: Physics has everything to do with the fact that the non-material affects the material.

You said:

Uyi Iredia: Explain how so without special pleading.

I tell you to school yourself in physics and you return to tell me that you'll accept my initial statement unless I contradict myself? Are you intoxicated or something?

Uyi Iredia: This peabrain is at his inanities again. Reread my response to that. As I said earlier, wilful ignorance aptly describes your mindset.

And here I must leave you once more to wallow in your inanities until you're able to think and express yourself clearly and properly.

Uyi Iredia: 'Uselessly dull', apparently you are at a loss for words. Bound by which moral laws BTW ? Yours ?

Another uselessly dull question. Do you think there are moral laws or not?

Uyi Iredia: Diversion.

How can it be a diversion when it clearly reveals the fatuousness of your position?

Uyi Iredia: I see. Yet you assume killing is wrong. Or can you give a reason why it is wrong without being circular, and so prove me wrong.

Did I assume that killing was wrong? You really need to learn to pay attention.

Uyi Iredia: I won't unless you answer whether lying is wrong with a yes or no.

Then don't bother answering. Your previous answer will do for now unless you wish to change it.

Uyi Iredia: Explain how so without special pleading.

This is the sort of ridiculous statement you make. Do you know anything about physics? Have you heard about gravity? How about magnetism? Do you think they're material objects that have effect on matter?

If you're this ignorant, then what you need is some education of basic principles in physics and not me referring you to articles on elementary physics.

Uyi Iredia: As as I said. God is not bound by moral laws the way humans are. Your statement is senseless if you fail to note this.

This is a uselessly dull response. If God is a moral agent, then he is bound by moral laws. Your useless assertions don't change this simple fact.

Uyi Iredia: I question it when I consider the good the God of the Bible has done, which good you ignore.

So according to you, was General Sani Abacha good because he treated his children well and gave them his loot?

Uyi Iredia: The phrase in bold is simple: if I can simply assume anything moral I can assume an act, like say, killing a baby, to be moral. I can also assume picking one's nose is immoral.

But you cannot simply assume that anything is moral. Or do you actually think that morality works that way?

Uyi Iredia: If killing isn't necessarily wrong then Christians are jystified in thinking God's killing right by your statement. But of course, I know killing, like lying isn't wrong, except when you decide it is.

Do you really believe that commanding a genocide isn't wrong? Please answer honestly.

Uyi Iredia: Pains in thehomer's delusions. Another explanation is that, as usual, you show poor comprehension, even poor memory. I have told you elsewhere that God is both good and evil and is free to effect both. The question of relevance to me here I have repeated, despite my sincerest efforts, to your wilful ignorance. I repeat it to you again: why do you call God evil despite its good (ie the good it has done). Your lack of discernement becomes all the more clear give the inanities of your fianl posers.

And if you'll recall (maybe you won't because of your probable Alzheimer's disease) I told you that we judge whether or not someone is evil based on the heinousness of their actions. And we don't judge whether or not someone is good based on their partiality towards their family, it is generally assessed based on the absence of those heinous actions.

Mr anony: 1. Physics has nothing to do with the fact that the non-material effects the material.

Physics has everything to do with the fact that the non-material affects the material.

Mr anony: Wrong sir. The information on the piece of paper (or whatever device bears it) IS the map.

This is why I say you're confused. Carefully read what I actually said. I'll repeat it again here. I said "the information represented by the map isn't the map". i.e what the map represents isn't the map, the map represents the relevant part of the city.

Mr anony: This information is objective and remains the same whether the taxi drivers understand it or not. The taxi drivers' brains do not create the information.

More confusion. Information is subjective by nature. If the taxi driver doesn't understand it, then it isn't information to that taxi driver. Your sentence in bold is another manifestation of your confusion. Taxi drivers create information in their brains otherwise they won't be able to navigate at all. You either accept this fact or admit that you're not addressing what I'm saying.

Mr anony: It is good to see that you admit that it is true. I maintain that it is exactly the same type of scenario. However since you disagree, you are welcome to show how they are different.

I never said it was false. You're merely making yet another trivial statement. My main point was to show you that information is created in the brains of the taxi drivers. Your disagreement with this basic fact is what I'm challenging. The difference in the two scenarios is that in the case of the taxi drivers, they create information from their experience in the city while in the case of the illiterates, when they learn to read, they create information from the book in their own minds.

Mr anony: Lol, and what would be the physical representation of the number of moons the earth has? It appears you've perfected the art of chasing your own tail

The actual moon. This is what happens when you're having some difficulty considering abstractions.

Mr anony: Yawn. The point has already been made. Triviality is a subjective opinion and if that is the best counter argument you can offer, then I have no need keep responding to something that has already been settled.

This point on your trivial statements isn't meant to be a counter argument, it is to stimulate you to take the time to produce something substantive.

Mr anony: I refuse to repeat my answers ad infinitum, I refuse to join in your mud slinging match and I refuse to pursue multiple tangents that lead nowhere in particular.

I'm not asking you to repeat your answers, I'm asking you to answer the question I asked you and to provide evidence for your claim that God was using a figure of speech. Those tangents lead to evidence of your God's evil nature. That much was very clear.

Mr anony: Good. So the way you go about determining the difference between right and wrong in a situation is by initially assuming the rightness or wrongness of what you set out to determine?

No, one of the premises in assessing rightness or wrongness is whether or not the person being blamed was actually responsible. You agree with me that this is the case yet you're unwilling to apply this same premise to your God.

Mr anony: I'm afraid that your idea of moral reasoning is opposed to logic. If you can't see it as clear as it is, then I'm afraid I really can't help you.

You've not shown a logical problem with what I've stated. You're merely implying that you don't accept a premise you actually accept and that is just a sign of your self confusion.

Uyi Iredia: I think you described yourself better than I would especially with your first statement. Your next statement shows YOUR comfort in ignorance given the fact that I have made it clear that I believe genocide is wrong. Your depth on the subject of morality which is of more importance here is lacking to the point I think you deludely foolish as regards it.

Ahh the sweet throes of your pains when you feel uncomfortable with your God. You believe genocide is wrong then what is the point of your question to me? Why don't you address the issue of whether or not this God of the Bible is actually an evil God since you've already accepted that what he did was evil?

Uyi Iredia: Cut to the chase and make your point: I have stated God isn't bound by moral laws the way humans are.

Your statement would make no sense if God is a moral agent that is why you need to first clarify that issue in your mind.

Uyi Iredia: Disagreeing with your response doesn't mean I support killing. What I state is that your assumption begs the question of its reason. Assuming morality can get you any kind of morality however bizarre or genteel: so why is killing wrong ?

If you support my assumption, then why do you question whether or not the God of the Bible is evil?
What do you mean by the phrase in bold?
Killing isn't necessarily wrong.

Image123: Oh tell me more, what is abortion. You seem to want to define things to suit yurself. Are aborted babies innocent or guilty?
Your belief makes no sense like has been said. You do nt believe in the existence of something, but you believe things about it. You take the cake brother, i've never seen such.

Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. They are neither innocent nor guilty.

The fact that it makes no sense to you shows your own limitations. Anyone who has read fiction with characters that are evil would understand what I'm talking about.

mcfynest: i am quite not in the mood to type much.....

FIRST- SEA IN THE BIBLE MEANS A MASS OF PEOPLE. Revelation 17:15 And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the LovePeddler sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

2. FISH OF THE SEA MEANS THE SPIRIT OF THE GENTILES... i guess you just need to understamd grn ch 1 to get this properly.

now, equipped with this facts, lets roll...

Jonah 1:4 But the LORD sent out a wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship was like to be broken.


NOW, THIS IS SIMILAR TO THIS VERSE BELOW RIGHT

Mark 4:37 And there arose a great storm of wind, and the waves beat into the ship, so that it was now full.

read the story again and read mark 4:36 to the end then you should be able to decipher the rest.

You guys will read anything into anything. So Jonah and his fellow sailors were sailing ships on the head of gentiles?

Image123: hehehehe. It would be fair to say that you are wasting your faith on yourself.

No I'm not. If you don't have faith in yourself, simply say so.

mazaje: @ Thehomer

Why do you keep allowing anony to lie to you about figurative speech nonsense?. . .Just read the bible and show him how wrong he is. . .The story clearly stated that they killed every thing that was weak(women, infants, babies including weak animals) but kept those they felt were strong for themselves, and for failing to obey Yahweh commandments for total annihilation Yahweh got angry with Saul and regretted making him king. . Read the story and stop listening to anony and his lies. . .Yahweh was even angry that he did not completely annihilate them. . .

1Sa 15:6 Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
1Sa 15:7 Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt.
1Sa 15:8[b] He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive,[size=18pt] and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword[/size][/b].
1Sa 15:9[b] But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calvesfn and lambs—everything that was good[/b]. [size=18pt]These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed[/size].
1Sa 15:10 Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel:
1Sa 15:11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.

1Sa 15:15 Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”

1Sa 15:16 “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.” “Tell me,” Saul replied.

1Sa 15:17 Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel.

1Sa 15:18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘[size=18pt]Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out[/size].’
1Sa 15:19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”

1Sa 15:20 “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king.

1Sa 15:21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
1Sa 15:22 But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.

1Sa 15:23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”

Aah my friend mazaje. I'm not letting Mr anony get away. I'm not buying his rubbish claim of figurative speech but because I'm not interested in hermeneutics since anyone can torture the Bible to say anything, I've left it up to him to show that what he claims to be figurative speech is actually figurative speech. If you give him enough time and the rest of that passage, I can guarantee you that he will torture something strange out of the chapter.

Image123: Abortion is a killing of babiea, millions BTW. No need to play with words. Does God have right to order killing of children? Why, you think wmen can choose whether or not to kill their babies.

You're the one playing with words here. You say abortion is the killing of babies and I disagree with that claim. No God doesn't have the right to order the killing of children. I don't think women can chose whether or not to kill their babies.

Image123: It is nonsense, makes no sense that you do not believe there is a God but you believe that the same God that does not exist is evil.

I don't believe that Voldemort really exists yet I believe that he is evil. Your God is in the same category as Voldemort.

Mr anony: Goodness and changelessness are part of what form God's nature. Talking about a being that is evil and whose character changes is to talk of a being other than God.

How can he be good when he gives what you've accepted to be immoral commands? How can he be changeless when he changes his mind?

Mr anony: God is under no obligation to preserve man's life.

Then you cannot say he loves man. Neither can you say he is a moral agent.

Mr anony: God did not command the killing of innocents. The bible does not teach this.

False. The Bible does teach this as I've demonstrated repeatedly. He did in Noah's flood and he did it in his command to Samuel. Note that so far, you've not been able to back up your linguistic claim that the command was an idiomatic expression. Until you do this, your claim that God didn't command the killing of children is simply false.

Mr anony: God did not have sex with Mary against her will. You are just hurling mud and hoping it sticks.

Did Mary invite God to plant "his seed" in her?

Mr anony: Yes premises are assumptions but that doesn't preclude them from the need to be explained especially when your "basic premise" is prescriptive (if it was descriptive, I might have given you a pass, but it isn't). Unless your idea of "moral reasoning" is anti-logic, I don't see why I have to accept a premise that prescribes actions without justification

You've already accepted the premise. If you wish to deny the premise, simply say so.

Mr anony: Secondly, I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat before you get it. That we agree that a thing is true doesn't mean that we agree on why it is true.

But since we agree that it is true, then you have to also agree that your God does something immoral by commanding the killing of children and infants.

Mr anony: It looks to me that you are abusing logic by making a circular argument in the name of "moral reasoning" What exactly do you mean by this "moral reasoning" of yours?

Good.

By moral reasoning, I mean: the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.

What argument have I made that you're referring to as circular? And how have I abused logic here?

Image123: You said it is okay, you are in support, the woman has the right to kill her baby if she so chooses. This is not an assumption, but a paraphrase of supporting abortion. Or did the baby commit any crime, the millions of babies killed annually throuh abortion that is.

I said the woman has the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. I did not say she has the right to kill babies. Your God too doesn't have the right to kill babies just so you know.

Image123: Oh so God does not own you neither is He out there, but He ordered the killing of babies nd He is evil. This is the definition of nonsense. It makes no sense.

That is why I wonder why you and others believe in nonsense. What you're saying is like saying Voldemort owns you. Once you realize that your God is no better than hundreds of other fictional characters, then you'll understand why you believe in nonsense.

Image123: i see that you've seen why our conclusions do not make us the same. The analoy did just fine, we are incoherent, not in agreement.
Hehehehehehe, you support millions of women have the right to kill babies, but God is evil if He kills babies. He has no right too ba?
You jst said it is fine for women to kill children who have committed no crime, millions of children annually. i want to assume that you have some reasons this time. Or is it just okay because it is okay? God is not man, He owns man.

I didn't say it was fine for women to kill children who have committed no crime. This is just your confusion. You're welcome to assume anything you like as long as you realize that you're attacking a strawman.

By the way, God doesn't own me. He isn't even out there to start owning anything.

Image123: You'll have to come up with something more special than 'the writings of herdsmen'. Why don't i believe you? How adequate do you think God's prepartion was? Does the Bible state that God prepared the fish? You ths intelligrent fellas should come up with something more believable and complete. The Bible is believable and complete.

The Bible isn't believable, you're just gullible. You don't believe me because you've spent your gullibility on the Bible.

dr dams: R u an Atheist?

Why do you ask?

Image123: How adequate do you think God's preparation was?

Obviously you'll believe anything. I may as well tell you that Jonah lived in an elephant for 7 days after he got out of the fish.

Image123: Well, we have no reason to believe it was a special fish. Wat we are told is that God was involved, GOD had prepared a fish. God is the special one. When the donkey spake, when the animals came to Adam to be named, when the animals came to Noah's ark, when the bush was on fire nd was not burned, when the Red Sea parted, it was not because they were special,it was because the special God was involved.

So Jonah lived in an ordinary fish for three days? How big do you think Jonah was?

Image123: Not only do i not like your answer, it is baseless and not lacks logic. You can't just say something is wrong because it is wrong. Our reasons make us different, we are not in agreement. Its like we both saying we like 12year Yvette. i might lile her because she's a brilliant pupil while you might like her because she's too scred to tell mum that she was molested. She's a good girl to both of us, but we are both not in agreement, our reasons are not the same.
Do you support abortion?

And more incoherent rambling here. Do you molest your daughter when you like her?
I'm in support of a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants an abortion.

Do you agree that it is wrong to kill people for crimes they didn't commit?

Mr anony: And here we see an example of irrational skepticism. Are you saying that figurative speech only began to exist when people started compiling dictionaries?

No, again, I'm saying that what you're calling a figurative speech isn't a figurative speech. If you think it is a figurative speech, please present your evidence in support of that claim. And just so you know, dictionaries are one of the sources of information on figurative speech.

Mr anony: If you had actually read the whole story, it would have become clear that it was figurative speech, but of course you can't be bothered can you? God must have to be evil for you or bust

The rest of the story doesn't show that it was figurative speech. It merely shows that it was a story passed along by oral tradition and that according to that story, they failed in that task. Your God is evil to have given such a command.

Mr anony: First of all God's nature is changeless so the "what ifs" don't apply

What exactly is God's nature? And how do you know it is changeless?

Mr anony: Secondly, you are yet to actually show an immoral act of God. All you have done is sling mud (how does the virgin birth support rape?)

I've done that several times. His acts according to the Bible like commanding the killing of children and infants and actually killing children and infants in the flood show this fact. The virgin birth does because Mary's permission was never sought before he "implanted his seed" into her.

Mr anony: The statement "God is Good" is like the statement "Water is wet". Goodness is simply God's nature

The statement "God is evil" is like the statement "water is wet". Evil is simply God's nature.

Mr anony: From this answer, it is obvious you don't know what I am asking you. By asking you why is X wrong? I am asking you the basis of our objective moral duties? All you have done is to assume the initial point. You have assumed that moral duties need no justification in other to prove that moral duties need no justification. Circular reasoning.

I'm simply showing you one of the premises for carrying out any sort of moral reasoning. You on the other hand are claiming not to accept the premise that you already accept. In case you didn't know, premises are assumptions so the fact that I've assumed it isn't in question. The problem you're facing is that you've assumed this premise too so unless you wish to cut this branch you're standing on, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Mr anony: I did not ask you with respect to morality why your parents should raise you not to punish the innocent?

And I did not answer this question you're asking here.

Mr anony: An example of a modern figurative speech: "It rained cats and dogs yesterday" means "it rained heavily yesterday". It is understandable for a person who is not familiar with the phrase to argue saying "it is a lie it only rained water" however after the point has been explained to him, it now becomes an irrational response to continue to insist that the expression must have to be literal.

You can search a dictionary and discover that "rained cats and dogs" means it rained heavily. Now what dictionary shows you that "kill all people including infants" means don't kill all people including infants?

Mr anony: My point has been made. God did not give an immoral command as you insist, it is contrary to His nature as I have also shown in scripture. Unless your argument is that God is incapable of speaking figuratively, I simply don't see the point in your contention.

And as I've shown, it isn't contrary to his nature since he has been known to kill children and infants. My argument is that God wasn't speaking figuratively when he issued that command. You're the one merely claiming that he did despite the fact that there is no language dictionary that would support your claim.

Image123: Why do you think it was a special fish?

Because adult humans cannot live in ordinary fish for three days.

Mr anony: A moral agent is one who can judge between morally good and morally evil actions and thus can be held accountable for them. God is not a moral agent in the same sense that humans are moral agents. Good is defined by God's character and actions contrary to God's nature are evil.

How do you know an action is contrary to God's nature? What you're saying means that if God's character was one that supports rape (as it actually does - see virgin birth), then there is nothing wrong with rape.
As his character supports collective punishment of children and infants, then there is nothing wrong with those too.
To put it simply, if God is a moral agent, then he is bound by the concept of morality i.e he cannot make it whatever tickles is fancy from day to day.

Mr anony: No it is not a properly basic premise because it is a prescriptive statement and therefore it requires an explanation. To say that "X is wrong" is to say "Do not do X" this rightfully deserves the question "Why?"

Note what I said. I said when it comes to talking about morality, it is a properly basic premise. Now you're asking me whether with respect to morality, people should be killed for crimes they didn't commit. That to me is a meaningless question and one that you're not asking honestly because as I've already pointed out, you believe that people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit.

It is like asking me with respect to health why should a doctor not advice you to kill yourself.

Image123: Oh so what i think affects why you think what you think? i do not think so. My reasons differ from yours. You're known for fickleness nd swervings as arguing against God killing children to supporting millions of abortions that go on annually. That is because you have no base, you just think things are wrong because they are wrong, and they are right because they are right. We are not in agreement. The question is WHY, not WHAT. Why do you think it is wrong for children to be killed, it is the same you that thinks it is okay if we call the name abortion.

You're rapidly losing me here.
I've answered your why but you don't like it. Since you don't like it but we both agree that people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit, then why do you still support a God that kills people for crimes they didn't commit?

Mr anony: Here's your answer again:

1 Samuel 15:3 is an example of Ancient Near East hyperbole signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites were commanded to kill all the people including infants

Are you serious? You're saying a command to kill all people including infants doesn't mean kill all people including infants? This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. So God was actually saying the opposite of what he wanted to say? I guess God too has problems with language.

Mr anony: 1. I hold that killing innocents is immoral
2. I hold that punishing a criminal for his crime is moral
3. God did not command the killing of innocents. What you have in 1Sam 15:3 is a hyperbolic statement and not a literal command.
4. Therefore God's commands are not immoral.

Is this clear enough for you now?

Why do you say it isn't a literal command when Samuel prefaced it by saying:

1 Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord.

2 This is what the Lord Almighty says: . . . .

What you're in fact saying is either God lied to Samuel or Samuel was lying to Saul. If this is merely hyperbole, why shouldn't one think that God's hatred for homosexuals is hyperbole? Or that the claim that only Christians can go to heaven is hyperbole?

Note that this is an actual command and not a suggestion.

What has become clear to me now is that you wish to deny the evidence of what is right before your eyes. God says kill everyone including infants but today, Mr anony has decided that God was really suggesting that a lot of destruction should be done. Please what dictionary did you use to make this adjustment to God's command?

God says kill children and infants right in that command but you translate this to mean don't kill children and infants. This has to be the most glaring examples of terrible apologist acrobatics.

Edit: Anyway, since you've accepted that it is wrong for people to be killed for crimes they didn't commit, why did God send Noah's flood to kill everyone including children and infants? This doesn't mean that I accept your claim that God's command wasn't his command.

Image123: It was a big fish no doubt. The Bible says GOD had prepred the fish. The God clause in the event made it supernatural, so you do not have to expect the normal for God had prepared the fish. If God had not prepared the fish, Jonas would not have lasted three days in it.

So it was a "special fish" that swallowed Jonah? Seriously you guys will believe anything at all as long as it is written in the Bible.