₦airaland Forum

donnffd:
This is one of the dumbest things i have read all day, second only to the dude who said the black race came about by eating black food...

Evolution is a fact, and only ignorant people deny it...i rest my case

Jupxter:
We need more mind stimulating thread like that Let's talk philosophical. You should come up with fresh ideas

PigCatcher:
I've never seen so much piece of junk written in few lines. What! This is ridiculous beyond words, I doubt if you've ever seen the four walls of a classroom. That would explain the crass ignorance you exhibit, an ignorance beyond redemption.

To start with, neither àmàlà nor ewédú is black. Where did you here that from? See picture below, I'm sure you're not colour-blind. Do you salivate? I guess yes, except if hating on Yorubas has extended from your brain to your other senses.

"Being back or white depends on the type of food we eat, it is scientifically proven", by who? By the native doctor in your village? Do you even know who a scientist is much less understand scientific facts? How more ridiculous can you be?

I know a non-Yoruba tribe whose girls and women were offered as gifts to European and Chadian mercenaries to satisfy their sexual pleasures when no condoms exists between 1967 - 1970. The result today are bastard mulattos fairer than those born before 1967. To avoid ban, I didn't mention that particular tribe. But I guess that's where you're from. So my friend. That is my theory, better than your "scientifically proven" black leave shit

budaatum:
So, if I were to say water is H2O, is that my subjective opinion?

budaatum:
I'm sorry. But this is one of the difficulties I have with your mode of dialogue.

Please explain your perceived difference between your statement and my statement. (I have posted the relevant portion below but check so you know I'm not cheating please.) We will shortly return to the portion I left out in yours.


I guess we might as well do it here

budaatum:
Sorry vaxx, but I do not have sufficient wisdom, ability nor patience to discuss with you. But as you insist, I'll have another look at the thread.

I will start with, all opinions may be subjective but not all subjective opinions are objective. Let me think then start a thread.

budaatum:
And when we tried to explain it to you, vaxx, despite having worked between the limitations you set, you claimed your subjective opinion was objective reality but others subjectivity was them foolishly placing teapots in the sky (though I am certain you used stronger words of insult than that). The impression I had at the time was that of a child sulking in the rain but refusing to accept it was cold and wet. However, it occurred to me that that might be the exact same subjective opinion you had of me.

(I wonder if we are ready to discuss the differences between subjective opinion and objectivity yet? Just a thought.)

ScienceWatch:
All this you have explain very well logically Vaxx. But one must try to keep in mind that the terms used here such as; God, Devil, destiny, Karma, Hellfire and Devil are all abstract terms without concrete reality. They are mere "thought labels" pointing to an experiential reality.

Therefore my humble opinion is that all your conclusions are logically correct but is subject to change when higher reason and experiential
reality is applied. It would be an interesting experiment to see what you will produce after applying reason and experiential reality to your perfectly logical conclusions here.

hopefulLandlord:
link?

hopefulLandlord:
link to the thread in question?

dalaman:
You are a liar. The only God whose signature appears in nature is Allah. The one and only true God.

asalimpo:
You wish there wasnt. It's a hard thought to bear. And a fearful one for many.
However, truth is truth- anything outside the truth is a lie. Instead of suppressing the truth, or
denying,it's safer to accept it and adjust to it.
You simply wish there wasnt a hell.

PAGAN9JA:
Unfortunately christianity abd islam have made Nigerians over-religious.

Had we remained culturally-untouched Pagans, we would be at ppar with the Japanese in terms of our general attitude regards to culture, spirituality, material progress, etc.

Our growth was stunted at a very odd time. we were never given the chance to grow and rvolve at our own pace and time. It has all become haphazard.

budaatum:
I do not do doubt as far as gods are concerned. Nor am I asking to be preached to please. This is purely an exercise in thought. Do note, the premise is based on the following:
There is god.
There is heaven.
There must be hell
There must be a devil.
If you are in dispute with any of these assumptions, we may want to open a thread to discuss, but I do not wish to entertain them in this thread please.

So, karma, as you said, in a nut shell means, one reaps what one sows. I have relisted my sowings below.

They may not sound like really hell bound sins, but imagine they are.

The question might be, what would my karmic reward be, assuming I do not repent or accept Jesus as my lord and saviour, and die? Or are you suggesting my agony will be dished out here on earth?

ConcernedRusian:
And god forbid the acceptance of imported ideas, lest they subvert our own (irrational and primitive) ideas! It's not like other countries have ever benefited from that sort of thing before.. *cough* SPQR *cough* Islamic golden age *cough* Holy Roman Empire *cough* Mauryan Empire *cough*

Atheism has never been an imported idea. Godlessness knows no nation, and neither, ultimately, does the scientific community. This is the fallacy of Cultural Relativity - when you try to extend cultural relativity to defend a cultural practice that is blatantly nonsensical. What the hell does returning to some pre-Christian Voodoo doodoo do other than roleplay the lives of some uneducated tribesmen from centuries ago, and why is the "imported idea of Atheism" not preferable to this?

budaatum:
Or gods? Which begs the question, from where cometh karma? is there like a savings account kept for all the things one does and the proceeds get dished out going forward? Then what would be the likely karmic reward for my sins and transgressions

p.s. I slipped that last word in. You need to work with the fact that my sins and transgressions amount to way more than any good I might have done before I died. My karmic account is negative.

ScienceWatch:
Yes TB Joshua is a true disciple of the mighty Jesus Christ - giving is just one great example. The ultimate test of truth of any worship is in the concrete practical benefits to the worshipers/followers. Actions speak louder than words. A philosophy/doctrine of impressive words can never stand the test of time.

Your points that I labeled 2 & 3 is absolutely brilliant because you are highlighting a global concern. I will humbly present my personal opinion as follows;

2) When LOGIC is applied to your second point, it is perfectly correct and acceptable. But it fails when the light of REASON shines on it.
All wise leaders know that traditions and religions must never be uprooted, because it is acts as a powerful unifying force in society.
At the same time, it is wise to gently introduce verified truths that provide a greater practical benefit to individuals and society as a whole.

Vaxx you will know more than others that Truth transcends all barriers regardless of race, language and cultural significance, etc.
The truth spoken by an uneducated man and a professor of science must be weighed on the same scale.

Truth that provide a superior verifiable benefit for its followers should be welcomed. Our oppressors wont welcome this line of thought.

3) It is refreshing to see how your 3rd point stated logically in this way, "Bible itself agree...the bible says God created us in his own image.." seamlessly leads us to the dictates of logic that must conclude that, "Your deity must kook like you in order to empower you."

You know that when reason is applied to the above example, the conclusion changes dramatically.

My respect for you as one blessed with a sound mind, remains unchanged.

ScienceWatch:
Ok Sir, I will see what I can do. Vaxx, from what I have observed of your many deep probing dialogues, you dont need help with higher reasoning. God has blessed you with a sound mind. You have seen through the cruel, hidden motives of the Atheists agenda.

They are not truth seekers.

Reason is the faculty of correct thinking, which seeks truth and which ensures that its activity shall start with all the observed facts of actual experience. Emmanuel TV is only one powerful example of why millions world wide are breaking free from Atheisms mere speculation. They pride themselves as masters of logic, But their premises are faulty even though only a few may nevertheless think correctly, yet arrive at wrong conclusions.

Reason avoids this mistake.

Many use the term "Reason" as a synonym for mere speculation. The annals of metaphysics are filled with numerous flights of sheer
fancy which have been given a seemingly rational direction. That kind of thinking that ignores the facts of others real, live, global testimonies is not reasoning in the real sense.

Although both logic and reason set up the same criterion that thinking shall not fall into self-contradiction, and that it shall not be loose and crooked, Logic alone is satisfied with partial facts whereas the reason demands nothing less than totality of facts combined with demonstrable evidence of personal experience.

The mental faculty of intellect, which may be defined as the activity of logical thinking, is always swayed by personal desires and individual bias to choose its data preferentially, whereas reasoning, which may be defined as the activity of truthful thinking, is rigorously impersonal and detaches its feelings from the handling of facts.

The observed facts of actual experience on Emmanuel TV is only one powerful example of why millions world wide are breaking free from Atheism's mere speculation.

OtemSapien:
According to the explanation of Oricha, the son of Ananwureyi

hopefulLandlord:
EVEN IF we concede the entire Kalam Cosmological argument as true, it does not prove the existence of a god. Not even a little bit. As Hitchens once opined, "all your work is still ahead of you."

It doesn't even make it more plausible than an all-natural, no-god-needed cause
From a simple man's point of view, corollary from the Kalam Cosmological argument proof, that God caused the universe, is not self-evident. Yet theists pass it off as such. Here's how your argument goes

1: Whatever begins to exist had a cause
2: The universe began to exist
3: Therefore, the universe had a cause
4: Corollary: God was that cause

For those that don't just believe in a god, ASSUMING the base Kalam Cosmological argument logic is complete, there seems to be a whole lot missing between 3 and 4. The only corollary that one can logically conclude -- again, assuming the base Kalam Cosmological argument is complete -- is that our understanding is incomplete. Could it be a god? Maybe. But there's nothing provided in the argument that would logically lead to that conclusion.

see? even if I'm being as charitable as I could, its all guesses and gaps

hopefulLandlord:
"has a date she was born" talk of circular reasoning

all you've done so far is misrepresent the big bang theory to fit the cosmological argument

"The universe began to exist" has never been proven by anybody

in your previous post here you've admitted the universe did exist in another form before the big bang

that's interesting, you've gotten the knowledge science can prove/disprove hahaha and that knowledge is the knowledge of the process, you happen to know the process and you found god, lol classic god of the gaps, seems we've gotten to the end of it, where you see god I see ignorance

hopefulLandlord:
big bang posits the universe existed as a singularity before it, at no point does it posit "The universe was nothing"

which is the most sensible thing to do, history favours this type of thinking over simpletons that simply call anything science has not explained as "goddidit", so many things in the past that god was used as explanation for has been unraveled and no god was found, so forgive me for not accepting the god hypothesis, I cannot and I would not as its simply lazy thinking




there's absolutely no knowledge you posses about the universe that science doesn't! the only thing you pretend to be knowledge that science doesn't posses only exist in your own head with NO evidence whatsoever


non sequitur, the god hypothesis is simply filled with ignorance

At the end of the day “God” is nothing more than a chimera: part fear, part hope, part ever-shrinking sum of what we do not yet understand.

hopefulLandlord:
using that explanation to buttress "The universe began to exist" is a definite foul, I can see the problem here, it seems you've heard the cosmological argument so many times that you think its a definite fact, cosmologists have called out theologians many times for misrepresenting their findings just like you're doing now




Nope, I'm aware of the gap, so I'm definitely not ignorant of the gap, I see a gap while people like you simply plug god into that gap


its because we don't know/ we are yet to know; it is what it is, nobody knows; anyone that claims to know, is either making guesses/ lying

ScienceWatch:
My dad gave me a book many years ago, but it got lost while moving house. It was based on the limitations of logic. I dont remember the exact title of that book.

hopefulLandlord:
you read this post of yours and tell me if it relates to "began to exist" do I still need to spell out what it means to "begin to exist" before you realise this? even your post here admits something did exist before "the universe began to exist"

we don't know the process, we don't know= we don't know NOT we don't know = God is responsible, you're proving my point for me

ScienceWatch:
All of mankind seek to connect with God, hence religion. If there is doubt they resort to using the lowest mental faculty - Logic.

Logic is the art which seeks to ensure correct sequential thinking, but unfortunately it does not seek to ensure that it starts with correct data ; it may and often does start with assumptions that may be mere fancies or wrong data.

Reason is the faculty of correct thinking, which seeks truth and which ensures that its activity shall start with all the observed facts of actual experience. The logic guy whose premises are faulty may nevertheless think correctly and yet arrive at wrong conclusions. Reason avoids this mistake.

hopefulLandlord:
actually "The universe began to exist" as used in the cosmological argument is a misrepresentation cuz its NEVER been scientifically backed



my question isn't loaded, I asked you what "god" means, its part of your question so its not out of place to ask



k

hopefulLandlord:
No "science" never says the universe began to exist the way theists use it in the cosmological argument, its a massive misrepresentation

to your question, what do you mean by "god"

hopefulLandlord:
Nope, I'm asking what it means by "Universe began to exist" does it mean universe was produced by the big bang or what?