₦airaland Forum

MaxInDHouse:
With the highlighted please try to be calm the thread is about God's tolerance and from the dictionary the word GOD connotes SUPREME BEING so if there are people commiting havoc on the planet but GOD only dealt with those He has warned repeatedly then i can't accept your understanding of the word intolerance. God tolerates His creatures and knew their weaknesses {103:14} but it's the evil in their hearts that He is pleading with them to have a change of heart! Ezekiel 33:11

My understanding? Lol. The definition of intolerance that I shared is the literal definition of the word. It's not my subjective interpretation.

And I still can't make any sense of your defense. Let me ask you a question: Does God know for certain where I'll end up between Heaven and Hell?

Namdio:
Yeah, I can definitely see where you're coming from, and while I could pick up another part of this post and argue about, I feel it has run it's beautiful course and should be ended with the following.

Under the examination lights
We have each kept our own
So now, let us agree
To disagree

Agree to disagree, we will

Namdio:
First I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to have this discussion. It's not everyone who can speak with facts so we'll, and you have allowed me to view the things I believe through new eyes and offered me an opportunity to test my grasp on it.

-snip-

It's been a pleasure. We may not agree on certain things, but I think this is the closest to a civil discussion I've had with a Christian (if you are) for a long time, where I'm actually able to learn new ideas. Your honesty and open-mindedness is a breath of fresh air.

As for the rest of your post, I completely see your point now, as well as some missteps in my own arguments. That being said, I'm afraid I still fail to see the relevance of saying "I believe in X...", even after empirical evidence for X's existence has been presented. Belief, in its base definition, is not a state of awareness predicated on objective information or facts. It is completely subjective, so I maintain that such an assertion is misleading.

There are facts that exist outside the confines of our subjectivity, and we use science to establish these facts. Once they are established, our subjective opinion becomes irrelevant to the discussion because facts are, by definition, the TRUE states of affairs. We CAN and often DO express facts with propositions. Beliefs are mindset-driven propositions -- our psychological "tinge" on propositions. The "tinge" (measure of belief) we place on a proposition for psychological reasons does not necessarily relate with whether the TRUE state of affairs actually exists. So, it's ludicrous to claim BELIEF in an empirical phenomenon.

Furthermore, you should note the difference between facts which are objective and facts which are contingent. All dogs are animals is an objective fact. The truth value is constant, given that the nature and features of a dog dictates that it can NOT be reclassified. However, starting up my car in the morning through the use of my car key is a contingent fact. It is true sometimes because I obviously need a car key to start up the engine. However, what if there's battery failure? Then the assertion becomes false, as the engine won't respond even after I use my car key.

I don't think the existence of God or gods as described by Christianity, is subject to chance (contingent). In my experience, Christians treat the existence of their God as a foregone conclusion, even going as far as to assume that atheists KNOW God exists but that atheists deny him wilfully -- and so it follows that if empirical evidence is presented that God exists, it will be empirical evidence proving an OBJECTIVE FACT. Therefore, it won't make any sense to claim "belief" in God, because once evidence is brought into the picture, my belief (subjective opinion) is rendered unimportant in light of the present data.

I hope you can understand my reasoning better now.

MaxInDHouse:
I respect intelligent people a lot because i have once been a professional in that field.

A thread on this forum is entitled:

"Should the Bible be updated?"

That is a very good question and the answer is:

"NO, it's man's understanding of this book that needs an update not God's word because God's word is perfect"



Regarding the above verse this is the meaning:

God is strengthening his servants regarding the fears they often have as they go confronting evil people with God's message.

"Do not fear those that can kill the body but cannot kill the soul" Matthew 10:28

There is no evil things any human can think of that's beyond God's undoing because He God created everything. Life, Death, Water, Fire, Heat, Cold, Wet, Dry, Iron, Rubber, Speed as in anything you can think of is all within God's creation.

So if Nebuchadnezzar thought of using the fire to destroy a servant of God you (Isaiah) should remember that JEHOVAH created Fire and He can control all the gasses that makes up what we call FIRE into becoming an air-conditioner for the sake of His own servants whereas that same fire will consume the fittest of Nebuchadnezzar's bodyguards.

If some miscreants thought of throwing Daniel in the lion's den remember that JEHOVAH created the ravenous predator known as "lion" He has the power to turn these predators into domestic pets for the sake of His servant Daniel whereas these same lions will devour those scheming the evil.

So even though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death i will fear no evil because JEHOVAH who created both light, darkness, valley, shadow, life and death is with me! Psalms 23:4

Thanks for your time!

I have asked you no less than three times to look up the meaning of the word INTOLERANCE in a standard and reputable dictionary, but since you're apparently too lazy to open just one extra tab on your browser that would have helped your confusion, I'll take the liberty to assist you.

intolerance
/ɪnˈtɒl(ə)r(ə)ns,ɪnˈtɒl(ə)rəns/

noun
1. unwillingness to accept views, beliefs, or behaviour that differ from one's own.
"a struggle against religious intolerance"
https://languages.oup.com/google-dictionary-en/

The above definition indicates that intolerance is a state of active rejection (unwillingness to accept) towards a behavior.

Now, I don't care to listen to your unsolicited preaching. I'm not religious and I don't hold the Bible as an authority on anything factual. The fact of the matter is that your God is self-acclaimed to be the author of evil. Even you have confirmed it in this post, with your interpretation of Isaiah 45:7, that God encompasses all things -- both good and evil. So it's absurd that you make this statement...

MaxInDHouse:
That is my God for you, He will never ever tolerate evil because He knows what will be it's result! Isaiah 46:10

...and still proudly announce that your God is the one who created evil. Or you don't see the irony in one having intolerance for the very thing he created? If you don't, then there's nothing that can be done to help you further. Your posts so far to me on this thread strike me as rhetorical in nature -- as someone who thinks he can never be wrong. So I don't believe there's any possibility of a meaningful discussion between us. Feel free to prove me wrong though.

Dtruthspeaker:
See tantrums and madness and insults

When The Debate Is Lost, Slander Becomes The Tool Of The Loser

Very interesting. You mentioned 1) tantrums, 2) madness, and 3) insults. Now, let's do a detailed analysis of your accusations to see who's really guilty of them .

=================================

1) TANTRUMS: I opined that the Biblical God was intolerant -- basing my understanding on his temperaments in the Old Testament, and then you flared up in a paroxysm of anger and bitterness. I even asked why you got mad, and you admitted that my statement set you off . Here's a reconstruction of our foremost interaction:

OP QUESTION: How Tolerant is God?

uche40: If you ask me, the God of the Old Testament is intolerance personified.

Dtruthspeaker: No one asked you. And humous man are still the same old very disobedient, very annoying, rebellious and stupid people who never learn that it is very stupid and destructive to fight your Creator. You will lose every time!

uche40: (puzzled by the bitter response) Who shit in your tea, sir?

Dtruthspeaker: You People ma!

I didn't even quote you in the first place. It was you who got triggered over a single comment, and went off on a senseless rant that had nothing to do with what I said .

Question: Who is the frustrated emotional crybaby throwing tantrums here ?

Answer: DTRUTHSPEAKER √

Score: 1/3

==========

2) MADNESS: To fully illustrate your mental turbulence, I'll give you bullet points of the moments where your mental faculties betrayed you, as our interaction progressed.

• You responded to my claim of God's intolerance by ranting about how humous (sic) (you meant to say humans) were stupid to attack God, completely ignoring the elephant in the room (God's intolerance). <<<<< 1st sign of madness because your response was a non-sequitur and a thought-terminating cliché meant to distract from the point.

• You asserted that fallacies do not negate "Natural Truths" <<<<< 2nd sign of madness because you clearly and obviously did not understand the purpose for which I cited the fallacy. For the record, parents being like a God is not a "Natural Truth".

• You claimed that there's a fallacy called the Fallacy of Different Quality <<<<< 3rd sign of madness because no such fallacy exists. For close to two days, you've been asked to provide citations for the fallacy and it's relevance to my arguments, and you have failed to do so. Obviously you made it up. Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Hitchens' razor applies.

• You claimed that accusing you of a fallacy was the same as asking you a question <<<<< 4th sign of madness, and one of the most telling signs here .

• You edited one of your posts to say something completely different from what you initially posted <<<<< 5th sign of madness because such action shows that you are unstable and have no idea what you are really trying to say.

• You claimed that you are a master of Philosophy and Logic, but you proved on numerous occasions that you don't possess proper knowledge of common logical fallacies. Especially fallacies in informal logic <<<<< 6th sign of madness. You probably suffer from delusions of grandeur.

• You kept repeating same statements over and over again <<<<< 7th sign of madness. You probably suffer from Tourette's Syndrome.

Question: Who is the brain-tickled madman that makes crazy and unsupported statements and can't stick to the topic of the discussion ?

Answer: DTRUTHSPEAKER √

Score: 2/3

==========

3) INSULTS: As I stated earlier I never actually insulted you to your face. It's not my fault that my description of your comments for what they really are appears to hurt your feelings. Everything I've said about you is in consonance with the contents of your posts. Recall again, that YOU were the one who quoted me first -- your post steaming with hate and derision -- tacitly appending unjustified accusations on me such as 1) Annoying, and 2) Stupid, because I rightly noted that your God was intolerant. You even implied that my assessment was an "attack".

Question: Who took the discussion way too personal and started dishing out unjustified insults?

Answer: DTRUTHSPEAKER √

Score: 3/3

=================================

Isn't it a curious irony we have here ? How poetic, that you are actually the person here guilty of the behaviors you listed. Psychology is a bitch. See how you neatly exposed yourself through psychological projection . And now we can also see that you are the one guilty of slander here, because all your allegations towards me are false. Lol!

For once I agree with you, Dtruthspeaker. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.

DTRUTHSPEAKER, YOU ARE A LOSER!

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!

MaxInDHouse:
There is just one thing i love in your comment: you consistently refer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) as the God of Maximus!

So i will say "thank you"

That is my God for you, He will never ever tolerate evil because He knows what will be it's result! Isaiah 46:10

He is the Manufacturer who tells the outcome if any user disregard the instructional manual!

I love such a person with all my heart because with Him i will always be safe and happy that i have the best friend ever.

Thanks once again!

Funny that God doesn't tolerate evil, since he created it in the first place.

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
- Isaiah 45:7

Like your half-baked, dim-witted brother in the Lord Dtruthspeaker, you've also committed the fallacy of the False Analogy, since a human manufacturer does not share the same characteristics with an all-knowing God. The manufacturer might be able to know the outcome of users misusing his product, but he can NOT know for certain IF the user will surely disregard the instructions manual or not. Such knowledge is beyond his limited purview.

uche40:
More importantly, how is it that you teach Philosophy and Logic, and are conversant with fallacies in informal logic, and yet you could not recognize that by comparing a parent to an all-knowing God, you run afoul of committing the fallacy of the False Analogy?

Dtruthspeaker:
With all your talks you ended making a very sweet mistake and confessing the Truth I told you saying

[b]"and are conversant with fallacies in informal logic."

And I said nothing about informal fallacies yet you found it.

So I take it, from this kindergarten retort, that you don't know what fallacies in informal logic are, neither do you know how and where they apply -- which would imply that you actually aren't conversant with fallacies in informal logic. Quite typical for a dilettante like you.

And there was never a case from the beginning since you actually haven't accomplished anything here rather than run around the thread aimlessly -- with crass shamelessness -- in your shit stained undies. The mere fact that you could only reply to a single phrase, that you shamelessly quotemined out of context from my entire riposte, just to make a frivolous and unimportant critique is the biggest indicator that you are way in over your head on this topic. How sad.

Dtruthspeaker:
Secondly,i already answered you. True Analogy is not a fallacy.

I never made that equivocation, so this is a Strawman Fallacy, at best. Your analogy comparing parents to God is a FALSE analogy and not a TRUE one. This is a basic fact for anyone who took freshman classes in Logic. I'm starting to feel like a bully now. You should quit now while you still have the chance because you are getting thoroughly exposed here. You have been caught pants down as a stark illiterate, and you're losing this argument at every turn .

My heartfelt sympathy goes to the unfortunate youths who were scammed of their parents' hard-earned money, attending classes in Philosophy and Logic taught by a half-baked, sentimental dunce. Philosophy and Logic teacher my ass. Lol.

Dtruthspeaker:
So your Ad hominems, are just non smelling farts and you have nothing to say

You mean the ad hominems which characterize all of your replies here? I'm not sure you know what ad hominem is. Shocking, given that you call yourself a master of logical fallacies. All the assessments I made about your person here are what I've parsed from the contents of your submissions. If it looks like a fool, and it talks like a fool, then it is most likely a fool. And I actually addressed your arguments and did not just ignore or handwave them away -- which is the prime characteristic of an ad hominem argument: "attacking the man", rather than the substance. Compare this to your rebuttals which are mostly bereft of substance, and are only intended to poison the well and cast aspersions on your opponent to distract from your crass incompetence in logical arguments. The only thing that stinks to the high heavens here is the after-stench of the puerile statements you've made here. The worst part is that you don't even realize how stupid or ignorant you truly sound. You are self-satisfied in your surreal ignorance.

Meanwhile, I noted that you've refused to provide a citation -- via any educational source material of credible repute -- for the existence of a FALLACY OF DIFFERENT QUALITY, backing it up with relevant examples and detailing its relationship to my arguments, and how my arguments are nullified by it. Not that I expected you to anyway, because you and I both know that no such fallacy exists. And even if it did, you worded and presented it poorly such that it seemed out of context with the current discussion. I'm not sure it speaks well on your part, as a self-acclaimed master of Philosophy and Logic. And I'm betting you wont have the cojones to admit your careless and senseless goof.

It's high time you told yourself the truth and stopped deceiving yourself.

A leopard can never change its spots, neither can it blot them out. You are not a master of Philosophy or Logic. You are no erudite scholar. You are an illiterate and a FRAUD. You can't pull the wool over the eyes of anyone here because any normal person can see through you. The nonsensical arguments you've littered all over this thread speak against you and declare that you are a pathetic liar.

In consideration of your posturings and attitude on this thread thus far, I will assume that your IQ is the same as your shoe size, and advice you to stick to making contributions to threads where superstitious simpletons like you can recite and regurgitate religious platitudes to each other, coupled with fear mongering, without regard for logical and/or scientific correctness or coherence.

Stop being a nuisance. As far as this thread is concerned, you have outlived your usefulness.

Namdio:
I hold the belief that, every analogy can be pushed to the limits. And I intend to stand by it.

People have Gods of forging, gods of wine, and the Japanese even have god of the toilet

Kawaya no Kami, kami of the toilet.

Goddess of learning and the arts
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Sarasvati

So yes, skydiving could be a god to some people, anti-abortion campaigns to others, and playing under the rain to another group.

So, yes, I'm strange. And yes it made sense to me.

Well, at least you acknowledged the subjectivity of your ideology here. So thankfully, I have nothing to bicker about on this front.

Namdio:
Ah, I apologise. I have no ulterior motives, I guess I didn't understand that part of what you were saying. Thanks for the clarification.

You're welcome. And I accept your apology.

Namdio:
I think I need to clarify. The point of my argument wasn't that there exists another mechanism by which thunder and lightning forms. My point was that to empirically KNOW the cause of lightning for every case, you need to prove what you know in each case. Or else you believe that it does.

I appreciate the clarification, and I think I now have a firm grasp at what you're driving at here. However, I think you're having problems understanding semantics. Your application of the word "belief", especially in the context of the described scenario, is thoroughly misguided. Belief is commonly understood to mean the acceptance of certain thoughts and ideas WITHOUT proof. By definition, the word "belief" becomes irrelevant the moment evidence is presented to support a claim or idea. You are conflating belief with conviction, and are therefore guilty of committing a category error as the two words aren't entirely synonymous.

A conviction is commonly defined as a firmly held belief. Now, I know you'll be tempted to say "...but, Uche, we're still saying the same thing! Conviction is still a belief!", to which I'd respond and say that you are sorely mistaken. Belief, in colloquial terms, is essentially an opinion. A subjective truth, if you will. It doesn't necessarily rely on concrete information. Conviction does. It's why people allude to becoming convinced about certain things, because they have the relevant data to support it. So claiming that somebody still "believes" something is true even after prior encounters with a demonstration of the fact, is using the word "belief" in a careless manner.

Namdio:
So you may know that God exists at that point, but until you prove again that he/she/it does empirically exist you can only believe he/she/it does.

In light of my recent appraisal of your argument, I still stand by my original answer that I will not BELIEVE, even if you present me with empirical evidence that God exists. Except I'll correct the latter part of answer and say that I may only become CONVINCED that there is a God.

0neal:
You being an exception doesn't negate hard-wired biological trait research done by renowned behavioural and evolutionary psychologist, has shown majority of women want in men

Well...duh. Obviously distinctions in the behavioral patterns between men and women exist, and these distinctions are informed by our different biological configurations.

We are a dimorphic species with hundreds of thousands of years and sexual divergence between us, so these conclusions from a biological trait research should be expected. Nevertheless, can we really tell what aspects of our sexual divergence are biological, and what aspects are social? Or where there are any overlaps? I personally don't think there's any clear cut methodology to determine this.

And even if there were, it is still important to note that preference is a spectrum. The findings of the study you are alluding to cannot realistically be extrapolated in the way that you presume. Something else you should consider is that it isn't particularly common for people to publicly declare their true preferences and interests accurately because of the pervasive nature of "mainstream" preferences. Some women like guys with hairy balls, others like their men clean shaved.

Gender groupings can definitely be predicated on biological configurations, but not on a common collective psychology.

How it started...

uche40:
Before we continue, I want to remind you that this discussion we are having is framed in the context of the existence, as well as the worship of supernatural creator deities commonly addressed as gods. As I mentioned earlier, I'm looking at what is logical, and more importantly -- factual, not what might/could be.

Namdio:
Got it will keep it in mind.

=================================

How it is going....

Namdio:
The Miriam Webster defines God as

God : the supreme or ultimate reality

Oxford Learners
Something to which too much importance or attention is given

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/god


Collins Dictionary
A person or thing deified or excessively honored and admired

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god

Now, before you say anything, I would like to add, yes this is a clear case of bending the facts to suit my story. I am not an atheist, my ability to make use of facts is limited by my bias. And yes, I am straying off topic. But the point I was originally trying to make was, although atheist don't believe in some supreme being the believe in a supreme something. Theirs is just a case of exchanging one supreme for another.

=================================

Don't worry, I'm not surprised. The little interaction we had yesterday has told me all I ever need to know about you and your worldview.

As you can see, I anticipated you flipping the entire context of our discussion on its head, which is why I earlier requested that we confine the discussion to the worship of Gods -- as in -- supernatural creator deities. I guess I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and was hoping you wont steer the conversation to a dead end once again. But, at the very least, it's good to know you're aware that you really did veer off on a ridiculous tangent. I'll indulge you just this once.

I couldn't help but notice that you cherry-picked particular definitions of God to advance your narrative, conveniently leaving out popular definitions such as this...

1) (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

And this...

2) (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

You are committing the fallacy of Selective Attention:

"Focusing your attention on certain aspects of the argument while completely ignoring or missing other parts. This usually results in irrelevant rebuttals, strawman fallacy, and unnecessarily drawn-out arguments".
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Selective-Attention

Now, let me clue you in on something important: whenever you select one-dimensional features or attributes of various definitions of God, in an attempt to appeal to your subjective insight of the term "God", your selection -- by implication -- can be applied to any event or activity we partake in which we accord too much importance and attention to, or which we excessively admire.

In light of your limited selection of features, I think it's safe to assume that

1) Anti-abortion campaigns are Gods
2) Skydiving is a God.
3) Playing under the rain is a God

By your definition, every single activity that people partake in is "God", making the term too broad and unintelligible since it won't convey any significant information.

Maybe it will to you, I don't know. You're strange.

Namdio:
To what does an Atheist give a lot of importance? Facts and figures. While for a Christian it is the capital G God.

This sentence indicates to me that you probably just skimmed through my post without giving it a thorough reading. I already refuted this claim by pointing out that not all atheists give importance to facts and figures. I made mention of spiritual atheists who believe in Karma -- which isn't supported by any evidence, facts or figures. Your repetition of this canard after I've already shown you the inaccuracy leads me to question what ulterior motives you have in this discussion.

Namdio:
The reality is that, there may exist (I have literally broken all your ground rules, forgive me) a case that thunder and lightning can come about by another process, which can easily be proved false. However to be empirically sure that all cases hold true we must individually test each and every case.

But to do that would be stupid, expensive and frankly a waste of time. So we hold the belief that it is true for all cases, and work (successfully) with this belief.

If the knowledge of a specific mechanism which brings about thunder and lightning is already accessible to us, I fail to see the relevance of looking for other possible mechanisms through which thunder and lightning could also be brought about. Note that this doesn't negate the possibility there exists other mechanisms behind these phenomena. Occam's Razor applies here -- the simplest explanation is most likely.

You can neither prove or disprove an unknown. And common sense dictates if something hasn't been demonstrated to be true, you WITHHOLD BELIEF in it. So I wouldn't call it a belief that no other mechanisms behind the creation of lightning exists, but rather, a lack of belief that there are other possible mechanisms behind the creation of lightning because they are yet to be demonstrated.

Namdio:
True, simple throwing the cup out the window would prove it. But the person could hold the belief that it was just a fluke, a mere coincidence and that surely the next time it would float.

What you posit here is a hypothetical state of affairs, and it doesn't represent the reality we can observe. I sincerely doubt that a normal human being with his mental faculties intact would be spending the next 50+ years of his life throwing cups out of windows in hopes that one day his cup will float, and even if it were the case, it will only be a matter of time before the relevant authorities confine him to an asylum after he is medically termed insane.

Namdio:
That's not the point. If it helps to answer the question, then let's assume Christian God is the god in question(any other God works equally as well with the example)

If the empirical evidence says He exists, would you believe?

I asked that you specify the God you were referring to because there have been many conceptions of creator deities throughout history, and even in terms of the nature of said God. A Deist God is different from a Theist God. To me, the latter would be much difficult to provide evidence for. So, I don't agree that my request for clarification was not relevant.

Now that you've clarified which God, I'll answer your question. The answer is NO.

I won't BELIEVE he exists.

I would KNOW he exists.

0neal:
Its the other way round, you took my first post personally, I did not quote you directly

You may not have quoted me directly but your post was a direct rejoinder to my replies on this thread. Hence why I felt obligated to make a response and defend my position. It wasn't me taking what you wrote personally per se. It was just me trying to correct any misgivings about my argument because it seemed to me like you were drawing a lot of absurd conclusions from what I was saying.

0neal:
You are dissing Mark Zuckerberg and his colleagues for inventing technology serious people use to give their creative work or business exposure?

Lol. Read what I said again. You weren't following. The shameless SIMPS I was referring to are infact the "philanderous men using the platform", as you put it -- who supply these girls with likes and sleep in their comment sections.

0neal:
If it's not too much stress for you can you point out the tenets you find bogus?

There's a lot to think about, but one that easily comes to mind is a common truism I see restated among a lot of Red Pill authors is that women secretly want to be dominated and told what to do by men. I can confirm for myself that it's simply not true.

Dtruthspeaker:
You do not know who you are talking to. I TEACH LOGIC AND PHILOSOPHY.

I nearly died from second-hand embarrassment after seeing this. Ha! So you actually teach Logic and Philosophy? Who tampered with your sense of shame? And you even had the mind to say it with your full chest, thinking that I'd be impressed .

More importantly, how is it that you teach Philosophy and Logic, and are conversant with fallacies in informal logic, and yet you could not recognize that by comparing a parent to an all-knowing God, you run afoul of committing the fallacy of the False Analogy? I find that to be an absurd irony, to say the least. Look, you may claim to teach Philosophy and Logic, and I have no way to verify your claims. However, considering your performance so far on this thread, I think it's safe to conclude that you are actually just a dilettante with base ideas of logic, but who clearly lacks the acclaimed extensive knowledge of logic and logical fallacies.

To tell you the truth sir, you'd have been better off not giving out this little detail about yourself. At least, people reading would have gone ahead and kept assuming the more likely explanation -- that you are random moro.n on the internet spewing sentimental nonsense. Now we won't be able get the picture of our mind. A grown ass lecturer, probably a professor of Philosophy and Logic (I wonder which institute awarded you that -- if you're telling the truth), that doesn't understand logical fallacies and how they are applied. It's a crying shame.

No, seriously. You are as dull as they come.

Dtruthspeaker:
So you would fail fighting me with Google which only gives summaries and not the whole buffet.

You claim to be scholarly but your jejune posturing indicates otherwise -- else you'd be aware that access to reputable educational repositories including journals and research work can be made accessible through Google .. You have now confirmed and marked yourself to be an amateur with this naive assumption that Google is a shallow resource insufficient for scholarly works. Pull your head out your ass and wipe the shit off your face .

Be reminded that you accused me of committing a FALLACY OF DIFFERENT QUALITY, and I requested that you provide citations to this fallacy, and explain its relevance to any of my arguments here and how it invalidates them. Let's see what you came up with.

Dtruthspeaker:
So, Go read philosophy and logic Text books eg Logic,philosophy 2nd Edition PrinceWill Alozie; Introduction to Logic (New York:
Macmillan publishing Co inc.1978) Irvine M. Copi.
U.Etuk Introduction to Logic and scientific reasoning (Port Harcourt: Hercon publishers ltd 1992)

Please sir, cite the page numbers, and paste the paragraphs here supporting your claim that there is fallacy called the FALLACY OF DIFFERENT QUALITY, then support your accusation of me committing a FALLACY OF DIFFERENT QUALITY, demonstrating with relevant examples how my logic was faulty. Here's your chance to prove that you are truly a Philosophy and Logic big shot and you're being gobsmackingly lazy about it. Don't let your grandstanding, brags and bluster be in vain .

Meanwhile, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has an extensive list of 231 logical fallacies and the fallacy you casually name-dropped is not one of them.
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/

Dtruthspeaker:
Do you know that fallacy comes from fallere or fallacia which means to Lie (to deceive)? (I am sure you did not know)

Red herring fallacy. You are yet to actually puncture any argument I've made. All you've done in your replies is advertise your gross incompetence on the knowledge of logical fallacies. So much for a master of Philosophy and Logic .

Dtruthspeaker:
They do not attack Truths: Natural Truths.

1) Define "Natural Truth"

2) Are you asserting that parents having foreknowledge of anything their children will do is a "Natural Truth"?

Dtruthspeaker:
Which is why I said, you have no thing reasonable to say

So sad that I turned you into a broken record, singing the same song over and over. I didn't mean to overwhelm you with the bitter truth .

Since we started having this discussion, you haven't brought anything profound to the table that is new, and that we can learn from. You made your debut by casting aspersions on my character after you got triggered by my comment that God is intolerance personified. Then you proceeded to sink deeper into the abyss of insanity and illogic with your lies and countless logical blunders:

Ad Hominems? Check √

Genetic Fallacy? Check √

False Analogies? Check √

Faulty Equivocations? Check √

Red Herrings? Check √

Strawman Fallacy? √

I wonder how many more notches you will add to this tattered belt when this is all over .

And let's not forget your egomaniacal rant about your mastery of Philosophy and Logic. In fact, you were so masterful that you created a fallacy of your own that has never been cited anywhere except on Nairaland.

Lol. You're fooling no one.

Dtruthspeaker:
res ipsa loquitur works very well here! You will fall by your words and it is your own words that will kill you.!

Logic speaks for itself. I have no ulterior motives here. I haven't twisted anything or made any blank statements. The misapprehensions you're having is as a result of the fear you have of your beliefs being exposed as the lies that they are, so you're throwing up a smokescreen to deflect and dodge and not have to deal with the contradictions of your doctrine.

Dtruthspeaker:
Let me keep my own too since you have confessed that you are capable of changing your answer.

The paragraph you pulled up is consistent with everything I've said so far, so the "confession" you are alluding to is a product of your fevered imaginations. Point out the inaccuracies and contradictions with your full chest, don't just say it casually.

You don't have the guts because you know you're our of your depth here. You are just a spineless, emotional illiterate who cant back up anything he says .

Dtruthspeaker:
Making an accusation of the commission of fallacy means that I have a right to address that accusation and set it aright.

By all means, you have that right -- except you never even bothered to exercise your right by actually addressing the accusation and proving it wrong by defending the substance of your argument. Instead you resorted to chicken-hearted handwaving by making a vague and shoddy assertion that fallacies are about things that are false in nature. Well.... duh! Logical fallacies are errors in the logic used in certain arguments. There can be no truth value in an error, so at best, your defense was just preaching to the choir.

Furthermore, my pointing out your logical fallacy does not translate to me asking you a question. That's just another meaningless equivocation you've conjured up for reasons best known to you. I implore you once again to get a primer on cognitive biases and logical fallacies. Also get yourself educated on equivocations and semantics.

Dtruthspeaker:
[b]And this just proves what I said earlier, which is you have no sense of Just is and Law and Judgement.

True justice entails that issues brought up in a discussion are addressed fairly and properly, without biases and prejudices towards the benefit and/or towards the detriment of either side of a discussion. You have the right to offer a defense to your position, and I have the right to call out any defects or inaccuracies in your defense. You are only upset because your infantile analogy was rightly called out to be flawed and stupid. You want me to accept whatever balderdash you choose to construct without picking it apart to see if it holds up as a solid argument. Sorry, but I'm not as gullible as you obviously are.

This is an online forum, not a church auditorium. Your random statements don't constitute the truth, merely because you say so or its written in your Holy Book. So instead of throwing hissy fits about some perceived injustice to your position, you can actually help yourself by 1) not being a careless liar, 2) making actual sound logical arguments, instead of arguments riddled with innumerable fallacies, and 3) having the integrity to swallow your pride and suppress your ego, to admit your errors and know when and where and how you were wrong.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you comit the Fallacy of different quality...

This is the second time you'll be asked to provide evidence for the existence of such a fallacy. You have made it up in your desperation to make any kind of response to me -- no matter how puerile -- because you know you are ashamed to admit that you truly have no credible arguments and that you're out of your depth. Like I earlier said, you're a lightweight who cant keep his emotions in check, so you resort to infantile tactics like this.

Dtruthspeaker:
...by changing the argument from the knowing that you would punish your children when they do specific facts eg "break your plates and phones, disrespect and disobey you, steal meat from the pot, fail their exams, run away with your car etc" and changing it into "any act, done 27 years later at a specific date and time" WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE.

You can't imagine how hard I'm laughing here .

Oga, stop getting your knickers in a twist because you got lost trying to follow a logical argument. In the first place, you're the one who started veering off on a tangent when I pointed out the deterministic nature of God and you replied with a specious analogy about parent's foreknowledge of their children's action. Your argument is rightly described as a False Analogy because you have taken the undue liberty to assume and arrogate similar characteristics to two vastly different subjects.

Foreknowledge suggests awareness of all things that were, are, and will be. It is knowledge of a fact before it is established. It doesn't matter how long into the future, a being that possesses foreknowledge can see through time and know how any and all events will play out. God has foreknowledge, human beings don't.

A parent who punishes his/her child for breaking a plate, did not possess foreknowledge of that child breaking a plate. S/he might have inferred the possibility based on a previous event but s/he can't know for certain if/when it will happen and when or where it will occur. A being imbued with foreknowledge on the other hand, will the exact time and place and activity that will lead to the breaking of the plate. Your analogy can only make sense if the parent is omniscient -- just like God.

And I didn't fail to notice your desperate and dishonest replacement of knowledge of "future events", with the knowledge of "specific facts". Remember you started by making a flawed analogy, and after I debunked it (with no sensible response from you), you resorted to slinging everything but the kitchen sink. I assume that you know absolutely well what we're discussing here but you just want to deflect and divert because you find the glaring paradox inherent in your God's foreknowledge too inconvenient for your bruised ego. Are you always such a manchild? Or perhaps you only exhibit this juvenile attitude when it involves your religious beliefs? For your sake, I hope it's the latter.

Dtruthspeaker:
So, again, you have no true thing to say, only Lies and accusations!

Au contraire, sire.

You are the one here telling bare faced lies and engaging in mendacious manoeuvres such as making up logical fallacies that don't exist. You are the one making baseless accusations that I'm diverting from the topic, when you tacitly did so yourself by conjuring up a spurious analogy that doesn't correspond with the narrative you are using to help your blind cause.

Again, is this best you can do? Is this really all you have in your arsenal?

I actually feel bad for you. You have a very simplistic mental process that has been watered down even more by religious indoctrination, with a side salad of the typical Christian hubris and intolerance.

Dtruthspeaker:
Now you comit the Fallacy of different quality by changing the argument from the knowing that you would punish your children when they do specific facts eg "break your plates and phones, disrespect and disobey you, steal meat from the pot, fail their exams, run away with your car etc" and changing it into "any act, done 27 years later at a specific date and time" WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE. OFF POINT!

So, again, you have no true thing to say, only Lies and accusations!

You are shamelessly dishonest.

I have quoted this post so you won't run and change it again in my absence. I'll answer you when I'm ready.

Dtruthspeaker:
First, you asked when you accused me of "fallacy".

So pointing out a logical fallacy = asking a question.

Lol. This is the most ridiculous equivocation I've seen this year.

Dtruthspeaker:
Secondly, "false conclusion" means there is True conclusion and True conclusion is not a fallacy.

Lmao.... What?

I guess a Truth is a kind of Lie as well, huh?

Dtruthspeaker:
So as I said earlier I have nothing reasonable to say!

Fixed. This assessment seems more likely with respect to this thread.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the best of you that you are only trolling. The only other option is the that you are an illiterate of gargantuan proportions .

Dtruthspeaker:
Fallacy of different quality

Now you're just becoming desperate, making things up. How unbecoming. Please provide citations of this brand new fallacy you just conjured, then follow up with a demonstration of the above fallacy and how it applies to what I said earlier.

Dtruthspeaker:
Go and check all the fallacies, they are about matters which are not True in Nature and ordinary Natural Living and not just a thing you throw about because you have nothing reasonable to say.

Nobody asked for your shoddy reclassification of what qualifies to be called a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies occur when you produce an invalid argument with a false conclusion. Please go get an education in cognitive biases and logical fallacies and stop embarrassing yourself. You're starting to sound like a whimpering amateur.

I have demonstrated the error of your argument to you. A parent can NOT KNOW for a FACT what their child will be doing in the next 27 years at 3:00pm on the 25th of October, 2049. The parent can NOT even KNOW if the child will be alive by then. Such a parent will need to exist outside of time. Do you know of any human beings who exist outside of time? Your analogy was demonstrated to be flawed. Deal with it.

Meanwhile, is that all you could possibly come up with? You have to come harder than this. Your arguments so far indicate to me that you are a just an emotional lightweight who only regurgitates washed out arguments peddled to him by his pastors at Sunday School.

0neal:
You owe me an apology too, for dissing my brand new redpill lens

I must confess, the way you introduced yourself to the thread, making snide jabs at some comments here and brandishing your "newly acquired redpill lens" as the sole reason for your assumed superior thought process left me cringed out. I'm usually very wary of gender extremists, be it Red Pill or Feminists.

I just thought it was childish and irrelevant, but if you took it personally then I sincerely apologize and seek your forgiveness

0neal:
Biology is not bigotry

True. However, I don't think I ever made such equivocation in my posts.

0neal:
I'd argue that the plethora of attention/proposals most BEAUTIFUL young ladies in their prime get from men often over-inflate their ego and make them flaky and picky, a typical example is the OP of this thread.

I agree a 100 percent. The truth is that a lot of young girls get carried away when they're younger because of attention from horn.y men and boys. I'd say it's even way worse now with social media and the advent of TikTok where any bland-looking Plain Jane thinks she's hot and sexy because of media likes, follows and interactions. All produced by the same shameless men, or SIMPS, as you redpillers put it .

I still insist that it's not a one size fits all though. If you have taken notice of my posts, I try not to make the mistake of painting all men or women with the same brush. I'll reiterate that I believe the purpose of this thread is to aid girls like Stargurl20 who, I believe based on her OP, are genuinely seeking meaningful companionship, and are not inebriated by their physical elements or obsessed with status. I wont fail to note though that these attributes are not all mutually exclusive -- no matter, at the end of the day, I just think it's about being honest with oneself.

In the meantime, can you direct me to any of Stargurl20's posts which definitely confirms for you that she has an "over-inflated ego"? I must confess, I haven't read EVERY single post here, so maybe I missed something. At any rate, humans are largely egotistical, which drives us to look out for our own needs and desires first and foremost before other things. Altruism (pure selflessness) is painfully rare. I believe anybody with an "over-inflated" ego would be a borderline narcissist though (probably suffering from NPD).

As much as I find some of the Red Pill tenets and doctrines to be bogus in some instances, I still think its' admonishment to boys and men to improve their self-worth and set standards for themselves -- to think with their heads, and not with their dicks -- is particularly noble. If men could accomplish this feat, it would greatly diminish the number of self-important young girls who tend to be flaky, picky and fixated on superficial features.

0neal:
I saw the flaw you pointed out in my post, yes you weren't advising young ladies not to get married, I am sorry for my sharp shooting

Apology accepted. I find honesty like this refreshing.

0neal:
Where is the Coercion in my post??

Stating simple biological wiring is not shaming young ladies, everybody is free to do whatever they want to do, having it in mind that the past, present and future are interconnected.

You really don't see how asserting that ladies are better suited for marriage when they are younger, by appealing to their biological wiring and configuration, can possibly mount pressure on a young woman to get married? Its largely synonymous with a common banality often phrased to women in the statement "you're not getting any younger".

chiboyo:
Well, all you said is probably correct, but the fact remains that there was no proof he cheated at the sinquefield cup chess competition.

I think Magnus was too hasty in his accusations though.

A very weighty allegation without proof and coming from a world champ is enough to bring Hans career down.

Although, i believe he might have confided in Magnus in some of his cheating, but all that can be denied if he actually did as there might be no proof.

Anyway, lets keep our fingers crossed as the drama unfolds

I largely agree with you. Although popular online streamers like Hikaru Nakamura allude to a number of circumstantial evidence -- which seem convincing, the fact remains that definite proof of Hans Niemann cheating at the tournament doesn't exist. At least, not yet. I also agree that Magnus handled the situation poorly. He may not have accused Niemann directly with his words, but he accused him with his actions by 1) making that vague tweet immediately after his match with Niemann knowing fully well that his fans would interprete it across all 360 cardinal directions, and 2) Resigning a subsequent game with Niemann after just one move. Lol. Like, why even accept the match in the first place?

Hans Niemann suing Magnus is reasonable and logical for someone who wants to defend himself from character assassination. But I don't think it assures us that Hans is completely squeaky clean himself. Just like how Lance Armstrong sued the USADA for falsely accusing him of doping, and it was later found that he was indeed guilty.

Anyhoo, let's just enjoy the drama

Dtruthspeaker:
The same way you judge and condemn your children even WHEN YOU KNEW that they would break your plates and phones, disrespect and disobey you, steal meat from the pot, fail their exams, run away with your caretc.

As I said, you do not know God because you are evil and therefore all your thinkings must be evil proving the Truth of The Law

As a man/woman is, so he/she thinketh or As a man/woman thinketh, so he/she is!

Your comparison of a human parent to an all-powerful, all-seeing entity is a good example of the False Analogy fallacy.

False Analogy ... a type of informal fallacy or a persuasive technique in which the fact that two things are alike in one respect leads to the invalid conclusion that they must be alike in some other respect.
https://dictionary.apa.org/false-analogy

Parents are humans, and are therefore not sufficient to represent an entity that is capable of transcending and seeing everything at once (omnipresence). Unlike God, a parent is limited in foreknowledge of his/her children's actions. S/he can predict, but cannot KNOW for certain what their children will do in their absence. You should rethink this analogy more carefully.

Foaming at the mouth won't accomplish anything for you here. Your ripostes to me so far smack of utter sentiments and emotion. Maybe you could try and actually face my arguments and tackle them honestly without resorting to needless ad hominems?

As for your puerile rantings attempting to exonerate your God of evil, I point you towards this excellent piece from Samuel Clemens:

"There is one notable thing about our Christianity: bad, bloody, merciless, money-grabbing, and predatory as it is--in our country particularly and in all other Christian countries in a somewhat modified degree--it is still a hundred times better than the Christianity of the Bible, with its prodigious crime--the invention of Hell. Measured by our Christianity of to-day, bad as it is, hypocritical as it is, empty and hollow as it is, neither the Deity nor his Son is a Christian, nor qualified for that moderately high place. Ours is a terrible religion. The fleets of the world could swim in spacious comfort in the innocent blood it has spilled."

MaxInDHouse:
It costs God nothing to wipe out an entire city if no one is ready to adjust their ways {Genesis 18:20-21} but then when he finds just 10 good persons He told Abraham "on the account of 10 good persons i will not destroy" {Genesis 18:32} and is this the same person you called INTOLERANT?
Please think of what Abraham did by bargaining from the destruction of two cities he continues from 50 to 10 and God kept saying "on the account of that number i will spare the cities" Haba, how come you now refer to such a personality with the greatest kindness as INTOLERANT?

I don't know you but i'm pleading with you now to go on your knees and beg Him for forgiveness because you've spoken against the Holy One of Israel. There is no one as loving and kind as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

God bless you and may you have PEACE!

I already asked you to look up the meaning of the word "intolerance" in a standard and reputable dictionary. You have a very skewed understanding of what "intolerance" really is. It is most often described as the rejection, or the refusal to accept the views, practices and beliefs of other people that differ from yours.

One of the biggest sources of God's irritation throughout the Bible is idolatry. Your God is self-described as jealous. He expresses rage and becomes petty when his creation don't follow his orders. He doesn't entertain deviation from his commandments in the Old Testament. Your God may forgive people for disobeying him by worshipping other gods, but only under the condition that they REPENT and return to serving him only. That is the very definition of INTOLERANCE sir.

Your Holy Bible makes it quite clear that God does not tolerate sin. He condemned Adam and Eve's lifestyle choice to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, placed curses on them and drove them out of the Garden of Eden.

Remember Uzzah and the Ark of the Tabernacle? What of the flood story in the Book of Genesis? Do these acts resemble those of a God who is willing to entertain any behavior or actions contrary to his will and orders?

Your God is also intolerant towards criticisms of his ways, and he labels it BLASPHEMY. That's why you're profusely begging me to "go on my knees" and seek his forgiveness. Not only is your God intolerant. He's a petty insecure crybaby.

Your God can kiss my ass for all I care. I have no need to please an emotionally turbulent fairy manchild who cant stand it when people don't bend over and submit to his infantile wishes. Your God reads like someone suffering from deep seated inferiority complex and low self-esteem.

Good morning.

MaxInDHouse:
Well it was the INTOLERANCE of the Israelites against pure worship and God's servants {1Kings 19:10 compare to Matthew 23:37} that brought about the declaration at Hosea 13:16

God bless you and may you have PEACE!

We were talking of God's intolerance. Don't shift the goalposts now.

cooooooks:
Off mic sir.



Add these to your repertoire (if not already there):
- if God is all knowing, then why does evil exist?
- if God knows everything is predetermined, then he has no free will.
- does God call us to salvation, in which case one's lack of salvation is God's fault; or do we have to take the step to salvation: in which case we are responsible for salvation, not god's mercy...

I'm not a guy sha.

MaxInDHouse:
Great! Now you're getting my point.
Jonah was sent to Nineveh to declare a death sentence on that city but when Ninevites heard Jonah and repented what did the so called INTOLERANT do? 2Peter 3:9

May you have PEACE!

Sir, I don't think we have the same understanding of the word TOLERANCE. It was INTOLERANCE of the Ninevites' practices and behaviors that made God declare a death sentence on Nineveh in the first place.

Please look up the meaning of INTOLERANCE in a standard and reputable dictionary. Thanks.

Namdio:
You'll have to accept that contradictions exist

Sorry. Can't do that.

Contradictions are grammatical anomalies where a person claims that A is B and A is also not B. It's like me telling you that the owner of this forum is alive, and he is also dead. My assertion has no truth value, and is therefore bereft of any form of sense.

You are seeking to create two mutually exclusive events and insist that they are actually all-inclusive. Well, I'm not buying. It's a cop-out. Plain and simple.

I asked you if God knows what I'll have for breakfast this morning and you answered below:

Namdio:
Yes, he does, because for him you have already made the choice. No, because you haven't made the choice yet.

I'm sorry, but this is nonsense. Free will is a logical contradiction. God is either omnipotent, or he's not. He's either omniscient, or he's not. You didn't answer my question. You just dodged to run away in silence but you knocked over a lot of stuff on your way to still bring my attention to you.

To prove the absurdity of your logic, let's imagine you in a party with your guys. You are talking to them. They're responding to you. There's communication. There's interaction. So you obviously exist. Can you simultaneously claim that you don't actually exist? That you can shake hands with your guy and not shake hands with him at the same time?

Contradictions can only exist "verbally". I can say that my shoes are purely black, and they are also purely white. However, my claim does not represent the true reality. In fact, you may start to question my sanity if I ever said such to you in real life.