striktlymi:


I tend to agree with that thought process.

If money can buy happiness, Jonathan would have been one of the happiest men in Nigeria.

Lol. You don't know that he isn't. Same for many of the other rich folk, the Dangote's, Gate's etc. You don't know that they aren't very happy. I think humans tend to be happy naturally, whether they have money or not. I've seen disabled roadside beggars having a fun family moment by the roadside in rush hour traffic. On the other end of the scale, if you've seen the antics of billionaire Richard Branson, you'd conclude that he's also very happy. People just strive towards happiness, in wealth or in poverty.

That's for you to answer. Some people claim money cannot buy happiness anyway.

If you're not planning to beat your wife someday, it does not matter that she is physically more imposing.

wiegraf:
^^^
Case in point, my supposedly 'superior' mastah.



Moving on, they say Messi is now in London having talks with us, the bosses, aka Chel$ki

I can't believe an atheist supports Chelsea. Smh.

Tonto is finer than the new girl jor.

sinequanon:


I use double standard to refer to a situation where we expect there to be a single standard. I don't think such a single standard exists, or is necessarily meaningful. across male and female sexual behaviour. The fact that we observe or continue with two standards does not make it a double standard. "Double standard" has a particular connotation of something unjust.

Also, humans are social creatures. We are all impacted by social expectations. Men, too, are impacted by women's expectations. They may insist on a man being sexually experienced before he is married, for example.



I think that there may be two standards -- not a double standard -- due to biological factors. I don't carry around in my head a standard for men. That is for women to do. They are the ones who are going to choose their man, and you have to accept it. Similarly, women have to accept what we choose.

Good point. Perhaps this is true. If it is then the OP is misconceived. Fortunately for the OP it doesn’t address why men have the principle they have. Thanks for the clarity you've brought.

I would say it looks better on Jonathan, cos his headset is nicer, even though that his smile is out of place. Who smiles like than when he is listening to music only he can hear in a public setting?

sinequanon:


The mean actually relates to the individual, but you are still correct in that the distribution need not be equal.

The figures for men could consist of most men having a few sexual partners, while the figures for women could consist largely of some very promiscuous women having an abundance of partners. (I actually think that this tends to be the case).

I can't imagine it any other way.

The statistics do relate to the individual. And I don't really see it as a double standard. There was never really any promise of "equality" in the first instance. No standard could originally be expected to apply. I am not convinced that modern contraception and technology changes the picture that much.

I'm not sure I follow. What do you see it as? There could be the requirement by evolution that women desire fewer sexual partners. This requirement is for women to follow. I think the standards come in when men, not evolution now, also require the same from women, even as the men want as many partners as possible.

Well, I agree something is awry when we describe a promiscuous man as a "stud", and a promiscuous woman as a "slut" with all the connotations.

Whatever negative impact promiscuity has on society is in equal measure due to the behaviour of both men and women.

True.

We supposedly have the wisdom to appreciate the function of sex and be the stewards of our own destiny, rather than to truckle to the vagaries of animal lust and brutal environmental redress. But when will we get round to using that wisdom?

Do you mean when will the double standard be removed.

sinequanon:
If a population of heterosexuals has an equal number of men and women, then the mean number of sexual partners a man has equals the mean number of partners a woman has. This is simple statistics.

Any double standard or expectation to the contrary cannot be met.

I don't know math, but yours seems correct. However, I think the mean number refers to the entire population and not to the individual. So while the mean has to be equal, the actual distribution does not.

If we were calculating the number of sexual partners for each gender, these statistics would be relevant. Even then, it cannot tell us anything about the double standards existing.

However, it makes sense in that nature has placed the main burden of sexual encounter on the woman and her family. It is the woman who carries the burden of pregnancy and would normally become the primary carer of a child. So, we have evolved principles that build on the greater vested interest of the woman.

This would suffice as an explanation for the status quo. Sadly, with the advent of contraception and other "stuff", not every sexual encounter has to place a burden on a woman. The foundation on which we've build our current principles have been somewhat eroded so one might expect our principles to relax a bit.

This probably doesn't sound very nice.

She must have been prepared for his getting a job right from when he applied na. Adim sure she will make her peace with it. I can't imagine how annoying it must be to see somebody succeed with little effort at what you've been struggling to do and failing.

ooman:
You dont philosophize what you dont know.

We dont have all information about consciousness yet, philosophy is to total waste of time on this.

You can only philosophize what you know.

Philosophy at this point will only lead to conclusion before knowledge.

I think the unique nature of consciousness gives philosophy an edge here. It is only the philosophers that have direct access to consciousness. Until science is able to observe consciousness, the best we can do is philosophize about it. Insights about the nature of consciousness can inform science on how to go about forming a theory.

plaetton:

The deist and pantheist agree that their notions of god are just notions, mere extrapolations, in as much as they believe it to be right.

In other words they admit that they could be wrong. This is no reason why they should be exempted. I was expecting something more thorough from atheists. I suppose these atheists don't claim that there is no God anywhere.

I am a pantheist who subscribes to the notion that god can only be the sum of all that exists. It is not an extreneous agent. But is still a mental extrapolation.

I almost thought you were an atheist. I also agree that god would have to be the sum of all that exists, otherwise his greatness is limited. Its no more a mental extrapolation than atheism is.

plaetton:


Just thought I should pinch you a bit to quitely remind you , in wispee tone, that you, sir, are the one making empty statements.
Please calm down sir, others are watching, and I am feeling a bit embarrassed for you.

I care about your feelings bae.

The statement that you say sums up what every atheist has been saying barely applies to a deist or pantheist god.

koolet:
how

I don't know. The usual way I guess, by cooking up a story about a pressing need in school or elsewhere. Preferably something which she'll understand why you can't/won't go to your dad. Of course you cant ask immediately, and you may have to break up the amount and ask two or three times.

Alternatively, just agree with her and wait for another money.

Minors are not for marriage, either to adults or other minors.

I guess you have to also take a loan from her.

Of course I will beat (or try to beat) anyone who does this to my sister. If it continues and she doesn't leave him, I'll have to respect her decision to stick with him and I'll stop beating (or trying to beat) her spouse.

See cabriolet keke napep.

godsgift233:

in
addition, most monotheists may
reject other gods because their
religion states that there’s only one
God. That’s clearly not the reason
atheists reject all gods.

This only adds to the meaninglessness of the statement. If there are many reasons for rejecting other Gods, why do you say that understanding why one rejects other Gods will lead one to understand atheism?

godsgift233:

To understand via the heart is not
to understand.
A favorite of mine, in a similar vein
to the Seneca the Younger quote:
“If we go back to the beginning we
shall find that ignorance and fear
created the gods, that fancy
enthusiasm or deceit adorned them,
that weakness worships them, that
credulity preserves them, and that
custom respect and tyranny support
them in order to make the
blindness of men serve their own
interests".

Empty allegations. This is certainly not an argument.
Is it even every single god that has been claimed to exist that is the result of ignorance and fear? You’re restricting yourself here

Reiyvinn:


I didn't say this was the sole reason for my Atheism. I said this was the kick-starter.

The seed of doubt planted gave me the effontery to research into Theism in general. Remember I said this was 3 to 2 years ago. Alot can happen within that time.

You are probably right, but even within this your reply you are still referencing the christian God.

However, I'm even considering being a Pastafarian. I'd rather worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster than love a god that kills innocent children just to prove a point; I'm to humane for that! (fortunately, such a god only exists in books and minds, not in reality: i.e. A fairy-tale)

Then worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, if you must. You don't have to worship anything at all, however, being an atheist.

godsgift233:



When you understand why
you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will
understand why we (atheists) dismiss yours.

Meaningless statement. The rationale for atheism is very clear. Unless you are assuming that anybody who understands it must then become an atheist, that statement is so meaningless. Not everybody is easily swayed, man.

You're being a little too hasty here.

There are religions other than christianity. Non christian does not equal atheist, you know. If you reject YHWH, what about the other forms of God? Your bible based objections certainly don't apply to them. If these are the only objections you have, I'm afraid you are not atheist.

And how sure are you that atheism is not the delusion? You know that once you admit to the possibility that God exists, you admit that you might be wrong, at the very least. At most, you would have conceded that God exists, according to one nasty variant of the ontological argument.

The issue of whether Adam and Eve could have populated the earth in 6000 years was recently raised on here, and it was discovered that they can, mathematically. Assuming that they have two children who both go on to have two chlidren each who also go on to have two children each, and assuming they do this every 30 years, then in 6000 years the offspring of Adam and Eve would have become 2^200, which is probably enough to populate even Jupiter.

This is why you need more objections.

Reiyvinn:
Those who know me personally (especially those who knew me 3-2 years back) can't stop to wonder how I, the once chivalrious youth who defended and preached the gospel as though I had been told that the rapture was the next minute, would suddenly become an Atheist.

Even if I took a time travel back to inform the ME of 3-2 years ago that I'd eventually lose faith in the Jewish Deity, I would've given 'ME' a hot slap.

The current and incessant inquiry I keep getting from my friends and family is "What changed you? What took you away from God?"

I must say, I've lost a huge number of my friends due to this and sadly, won't be getting them back any time soon but I will not pretend to believe in what is proven to be outrightly false and ridiculous just because I wish to keep my friends. How long will it last?

It's only my true friends (some of whom are Muslims, Christians, Agnostics, Atheists, Trad, e.t.c) that I have left.

So, back to the reason for the thread, WHY did I lose faith in the Jewish Deity? What triggered that effontery?

Admittedly, it was really hard thinking back to where it all started. I mean, I didn't give it much thought until recently when I got an eureka moment after viewing one of my old Facebook profiles and viewed all my messages (old and lost) before stumbling upon that wonderful conversation. It was filled with familiar questions that I believe at least 90% of Christians have [at one point] had troubles answering but shoved aside.

1.) "Where did Cain get a Wife?"

My reply [as most honest Christian replies would be] was: "I dunno, but I believe God must have created them (the nations he went to) aside for him or perhaps, the people of those nations were also descendants of Adam"

Then he threw some Nagasaki bombshells: "If they were created aside, that is to say, not born of Adam who is purported to be the Father of mankind, why is the Adamic Curse such as Death, Labour pain, e.t.c equally binding on them as well since they neither tasted the forbidden fruit nor were they born of Adam (thus inheriting the sin and the curse)??

And if they were indeed Adam's Descendants, does it mean that during Adam's lifetime he was able to give birth to nations and Cain, being the first son, witnessed this happening and was still a marriable youth when they had grown to marriable ages (since he went to get a wife from from a people he watched grow)

And yes, does it mean that the world was populated by the means of in-cest??!"


2.) Lastly, you want me to believe that in the course of Human history; which your Bible says is just 6000 years ago, over 75 Billion People descended from just two Humans

Think about it

Oh boy, that was evidently too much for me but I made it appear as though it was nothing (most Christians do that) so I shoved it aside and gave him the "God works in mysterious ways" kind of answer. But deep down, I knew it made absolutely no sense at all; it was too absurd to come from an All-Knowing God.

I traced that conversion to have been the start of my journey out of the age-old delusion.

Thsuperiorman:
Phew! Wtf! After going through some of the posts in this chat box, I thought I'd find intelligible and productive discussions about science and/or philosophy outside religion. Unfortunately and disappointedly, it's just a useless chat box for jobless dumb people who are atheists for NO GOOD reason. All you do is quarrel, insult religious people (not that you are any where close to being better than them), raise stupid topics for discussion etc. Smfh... I think I'd "sticky" with the religion rooms, they are more intelligible.

Get a life!

Apologies.

This chatbox appears to be for every person who is neither christian nor muslim.

Your grouse appears to be with the atheist population here.

You see, if the atheists have good reasons to be atheists, you are likely to find those reasons on threads where they argue/discuss with theists.

I take it that you deny that you have seen any good reason for atheism anywhere on nairaland. You even refer to threads created by atheists as silly, which makes me wonder what you mean when you accuse atheists of not producing good reasons for atheism in this chatbox.

Whether one human being can be said to be better than another is debatable, and there is more controversy about whether you are entitled to insult any person you think you are better than, on the basis that you are better than them. I would say that you feel so entitled.

I suspect that you are looking to generate some excitement with your post. Since you have chosen to participate in this chatbox, you are welcome to start a scientific or philosophical discussion here. No matter the outcome of the discussion, you would have won, since you would have either gotten the intelligible discussion you want, or you would have gotten further proof that atheist are jobless dumbasses.

Happy new year musKeeto. Here's to less of you in Africa this year.

benalvino2:


you hear huh?

You can check it for yourself, if you're not only interested in making blind claims.

The big bang is your friend, theist.

benalvino2

From what I hear of the Big Bang, it was church men who initially welcomed it. In fact, it was thought up by a priest, George Lemaitre. The chief catholic at the time even chipped in thus:

Pope Pius XII, opening a conference at the Vatican in 1951, declared that this new theory of cosmic origins bore witness “to that primordial Fiat lux uttered at the moment when, along with matter, there burst forth from nothing a sea of light and radiation. . . . Hence, creation took place in time, therefore there is a creator, therefore God exists!”

The non theistic among the scientists were not entirely pleased with the theory. Albert Einstein, who previously imagined the universe to be eternal, made some ad hoc modifications to his theory of general relativity in order to avoid a universe with a beginning in time. He eventually had a change of heart.

The big bang theory implies that the universe has a beginning in time, and it has nothing to say about what caused the bang and other similar questions. It does not rule out God in anyway, so I wonder why you imagine that you should be opposed to it on theistic grounds or that an atheist should automatically endorse it.

sinequanon:


Many atheists, I said.

That's right. I had it in mind.

We have yet to find one on this forum who doesn't.

...

I think that most of them are in a transitional state, trying to escape religion, but haven't found a way. They imagine that they have, though, and celebrate by bashing religion. When you point out that their form of atheism is a religion and they are indulging in self-loathing, they go ballistic.

I see it now. Some atheists hate their religion because they hate all religion.

I think that certain aspects of religion merit a good bashing. I think the right person to do the bashing is every person, religious or otherwise. I don't know if you're advocating for an end to the bashing, or for an end to the bashing by some atheists (the ones you say are religious). Either way, I say let it continue.

I don't see how preference for a materialist explanation of reality amounts to a belief that can result in religion.

sinequanon:
I recently figured it out.

Most atheists try to set their religion of materialism apart by claiming that it isn't a religion.

The argument they use is that their religion of materialism has been proven to be objective,....by their religion of materialism. LOL.

The problem is that, having fooled themselves that they have no religion, so many of them have gone on a religion bashing spree.

This screwed up condition turns out to be a form of self-loathing!

To avoid this unbalanced way of being, it would be better if atheists got comfortable with their religion and concentrated on explaining why they think it is the best religion.

What is the reason why atheists hate their religion? I haven't seen it.

You have only said what we should not do. So, what should we do?

LordReed:


Traditional African wedding is not done with wedding ring so you are mixing things up.

Na the simple answer be that. You cannot even be married to more than one person at the same time under court or church marriage which are the marriages that are involved with rings.

Since a piercing is usually permanent and we can see that not everybody likes one, this issue is worth a second thought. That child whose ears you pierced could become an adult who dislikes piercings. Fortunately piercings are not an inconvenience.

Nothing to see here. It only looks wrong when you can't see a body and not think of sex. It will lead to a lot of awkward questions btw the two sha, especially when he's older.

Jesus Christ went to hell and came out clean after three days. This indicates that hell can clean a dirty soul. If souls can be cleansed in hell, then eternal punishment is unnecessary, and even counter productive since it does not allow cleansing. Strangely most Christians prefer to focus on eternal incineration in hell, which is the least pleasant alternative, as the best way through which justice can be obtained.

Maybe they just like the fear.