₦airaland Forum

wait - I'll re-write that!

Krayola:
I hardly hear the atheists here crying foul when they get shitted on. It's fair game. But just be ready for the crossfire.  

Hahaha! The atheists who hardly cry foul only get perfumed shit. . .  when they get some foul smelling shit then you'll hear the cries.

Deep Sight:
It particularly strikes me how people cannot see how simple the oneness of infinity concept is in relation to God. Afterall God is said to be ONE by the major monotheistic religions. He is also said to be eternal, or infinite. So what is so strange or new about a oneness of infinity by which I simply seek to expatiate on the Divine nature.

The problem with your own 'oneness of infinity' is that it is cosmetic. Sorry, Deep Sight, but tying that concept to the 'major monotheistic religions' just won't do nicely for your own deism - especially when you often seem to be borrowing from theism to embalm your deism. This is, I think, one of the reasons why so many of your readers are not happy with your own explications about your infinitiness of infinities.

wirinet:
Deep sight, I am highly disappointed by your Above statements, you have dropped several notches in my admiration and respect for you. Your are now beginning to show your distaste and dislike for the Atheist's point of view, which had remained largely hidden until now.

In one breadth you define atheism as a disbelief in the existence of God (or gods) and in another you proclaim "the atheist must be omniscient, since he positively claims to know what exists or does not exist". I call that verbal aggression.

Hi wirinet, it seems to me that Deep Sight might not necessarily be wrong in substance of what he posted; the problem might be more in how he had expressed himself. However, I think that we could appreciate where he was coming from when you consider this -

Deep Sight:
The plain truth is that 99% of NL atheist have no uncerstanding of the word "Atheist" - which is why i consistently pose the question to them.

Atheism is not agnosticism. Atheism positively denies the existence of God.

So, you can see where he was coming from (and that is something that has me bothered as much as he was on that subject). It is not so much a matter of the arguments many atheists put forward here on Nairaland, often based on denials of the existence of any gods/God. I often wonder: what essentially is 'atheism' for the truly informed atheist who can hold his or her own worldview without reference to any theistic worldview? What is the substance of atheism if theism is not in the picture for the typical atheist? That is something that seems to be lacking in many typical atheistic arguments on Niaraland - which is why I can understand where Deepsight is coming from.

OLAADEGBU:
G.K. Chesterton put it straight in no uncertain terms by saying and I quote

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists."

Could it be possible that Chesterton was wrong? I guess he was! But that is not what I would like to discuss just now. Do you guys even settle down for one moment to think about the fact that 'atheism' is not all about whether Christianity preaches 'God' or not?

The OP is making a simple enquiry: 'what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism, and how significant are they?' Could we just try and stick to that, rather than spin around every direction making unwarranted posts?

chukwudi44:
The Roman catholic church is not a human institution.That's why it has survived for 2000 years now .The institutions that are human are the ones that came afterward.

If that argument stands, your Catholic institution is a new comer - Zoroastrianism is far older than Catholicism. Please stop using these very, very puerile arguments as crutches to defend what you cannot defend, especially when you're at pains to deny what is written in your own Bible (remember Acts 14:14?).

chukwudi44:
did you not read in the first chapter of acts that judas was replaced with mathatias ,even two people was nominated and only one was chosen just to make up that number.

chukwudi44, I read and very well understand Acts 1:23 & 26. Yet, that still leaves the question unanswered as to Peter's own acknowledgement in Acts 1:17 that Judas was 'numbered among us'.

You often assume that others who discuss subjects like this are ignorant of what you think; if only you could be a little more accommodating to see that you don't have a clue what they already know - such as would make your own arguments a sorry tale.

Besides all that, the fact that Paul and Barnabas were called 'apostles' in Acts 14;14 shows clearly that there were more than twelve apostles in the Body of Christ: adding those two to the twelve would bring the number to fourteen - not to mention several other apostles besides. So what is the use of your further argument that goes nowhere? Are you trying to re-write the Acts and deny what is said in Acts 14:14?

should we also say Jesus was speaking symbolically im mattew 19:28 when he said to the twelve

That is interesting - and I was waiting for you to cough further before I quote Matthew 19:28. . . but you anticpated me. Good one. Now notice that Matthew 19:28 has no reference whatsoever to Matthias who was chosen in Acts 1:26. If we are to follow your own literal application to these texts, then Matthias would not be sitting on any throne, but it would be rather Judas who should sit on the throne with the Eleven apostles to judge the Twelve tribes of Israel.

What you don't understand here is that Matthew 19:28 ('ye which have followed me, . . ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones') was spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ when Judas was still among the Twelve and Matthias was not even numbered among them! In Acts 1:17, Peter acknowledged that Judas was numbered among the Twelve! If you want a literal application to Matthew 19:28, please don't cheat Judas out of the list - it would be fair to use that same literalism to acknowledge that Judas has a throne among the eleven to judge the twelve tribes of Israel! That, my dear sir, is not viaro's argument at all - but you're at pains to cover up and deny that there are more than twelve apostles in the Body of Christ, not even when I had pointed out Acts 14:14.

The number twelve is definite.

Was Judas not among that 'definite' twelve when Jesus spoke to them in Matthew 19:28? Was Matthias already numbered among them when Jesus made that promise?

Mind you am not trying to belitle the personality of St Paul of tarsus or his tremendous contribution to christianity.St Paul was a great man of God and among the greatest figures in christian history,but that should not mean he was among the twelve.

Have you not noticed? No one here is arguing that Paul was among the Twelve - we have said so already. See -

[list]

viaro:
(a) Paul was not among the Twelve

_{(b) Paul was not an apostle}

The first statement in (a) above is true, that Paul was not numbered among the Twelve.

nuclearboy:
Finally yes, Paul was not among the 12. Judas Iscariot was the 12th . . .

[/list]

. . . we have already made the acknowledgement that Paul was not among the Twelve - but that does not wipe out the OBVIOUS fact that Paul and Barnabas were called apostles in Acts 14:14 - which is an example that clearly shows us that there are more than twelve apostles in the Body of Christ, since adding those two would bring the number to fourteen!

Remember during the election of mattatias to replace Judas it was stated that the person that was to be chosen must be one who had been with them even during the time of Jesus.

Besides the Twelve, there were more than Matthias that had been with them during the time of Jesus - Acts 1:23 shows us that both Matthias and Joseph (called Barsabas) were among such. Have you taken the time to know why Jesus chose just Twelve apostles specifically, even though there were up to seventy that He appointed at one time during His ministry (Luke 10:1 & 17)? Were those seventy not also with Jesus during His time?

To summarize ,Jesus had many disciples but only twelve apostles

False - I've shown that there are more than twelve apostles, or Acts 14:14 should not be in your Bible.

Guys, let's be careful in what we say and avoid stereotypes. Not all atheists assume a default position of express denials of the existence of God, gods or any supernatural realities. There are some atheists who are very open to discussions about the possible existence of phenomena and realities that cannot be explained by naturalism - these cannot be said to be among the many 'typical' atheists that like to expressly claim to 'know' that God does not exist (yet, they are not to be confused for agnostics).

It would be fairer to say that 'some atheists' are so and so, rather than lump them all in a default position.

As for agnostics, the same thing could be said - for there are agnostics who like to assume an 'i-don't-know' preference, but nonetheless actually believe in some 'higher power' (they are quite shy to give the appellation of 'god/deity' to this 'higher power' - for reasons best known to them). I guess if someone was to keep asking these agnostics questions upon questions, we might be 'blaspheming' their faith as well.



edit:
____

Deep Sight:
This is a brilliant illustration of the stupidity and gross presumption of atheism.

Well, ala Krayola, let's be cautious in drawing conclusions. IMO, I don't think we should hurriedly be dismissive. In very practical terms, 'atheism' is not to be dismissed with 'stupidity and gross presumption' because that is not what atheism is. People often tend to dismiss and deride what they do not know or understand, and there are many people who act that way on Nairaland because they neither know nor understand what atheism is all about. There are some questions that atheism poses to us all that none of us (including atheists themselves) have been able to answer, and yet those questions have been food for thought to so many of us who lean towards a belief in God, 'higher power', etc. I appeal that we seek to discuss and be self-controlled so we don't end up being presumptive and derisive.

nuclearboy:
@Viaro:

You must be the 9th wonder of the known world - never heard of carbonated "booze" drink intoxicating anyone

Hahaha. . I knew that was coming. Actually, I'd been banned from booze and had the 'carbo' instead - lots of schwepps - and was belching and typing those lines. Almost every post I made last night had typos in them. Yay - that must've been a wonder!

ROSSIKE:
I guess you could substitute physical for solid. Nothing is really ''solid''.

Physical, solid. . or any other descriptive word along such ideas, I'm still asking why you affirm that nothing is physical or solid? What is meant by 'physical' or 'solid' that you assert nothing could be either of them?

ROSSIKE:
Nothing is ''physical''. Not the ''planets'', not the Earth, not You, not your PC, and not your keyboard.

Why is that so - why is nothing (among all those entities) physical? What is meant by 'physical'?

noetic15:
I could not have said this better. . .brilliant.

Lol, please excuse the typos. . . I'd had too much carbonated drink for the yuletide, as long as the message I was trying to convey was clear.

manmustwac:
@post
do u have proof that life has a purpose and that we were created?

I cannot answer for the OP. However, questions like that draw my comments. When you ask about 'proof' for this or that, it makes me wonder about a few things:

1. What kind of 'proof' are you asking for? And whatever type/kind of 'proof' you seek, one would hope that you are well grounded in the discipline of that type of 'proof'.

2. One the other hand, what 'proof' do you have (if any) to suggest the direct opposite - that we were not created?

3. I do not know what exactly is the purpose of creation; although that is something that cannot be narrowed down to just one thing.

Pastor AIO:
I've got my own working definition for intelligence that is sometimes at odds with how others use the term.  It's quite subtle.

I like that so very much - the highlight taken into consideration. While you logically moved out from your initial definition of intelligence, I realised that it encompassed several other elements you may not have detailed. In this regard, it would not only include your own definition, but a few others as Wikipedia highlights:

[list]Intelligence is an umbrella term used to describe a property of the mind that encompasses many related abilities, such as the capacities to reason, to plan, to solve problems, to think abstractly, to comprehend ideas, to use language, and to learn. There are several ways to define intelligence.[/list]

I started a thread called Ona kan o w'oja (more than one path to the market) in order to explore these ideas, but the other main contributor was Olabowale.  So as you can imagine the thread went nowhere.

Oh dear me! You asked for . . !!!    Okay, kidding. But that would have been quite a good thing to discuss, and hope for the day many more who post in the Religion Board would be able to rise above mere theological exercises and experiment with just thinking (no, I don't want to say 'philosophy' too quickly).

The main point that I'm trying to make here, and there is a point trust me, be patient, is that people rarely recognize intelligence if it not applied to an intent.

That is a fine point - I dare add nothing to it.

So you see intelligence without intent is hard to see.  However it is possible, and not only possible, but common.

Good point.

________________
addendum

Pastor AIO:
Were you kidding? Weren't you kidding? I can't tell but either way that's a fine point, very well put, and I might yet use it myself in the future.

Well, sorry for the mix-up there; but I was not kidding on that though.

@Pastor AIO,

Thanks for the responses, quite interesting. This one first:

Pastor AIO:
Could it be that Deepsight's statement is just plain wrong. Okay, if not wrong then in need of a dusting down.

Well, it seemed possible that his statement was 'wrong', but I was being careful to not hastily conclude so - especially when I did not know where he was coming from. Perhaps, a small tuning ('dusting down') would be more preferable.

That there is meaning at all is 'conclusive proof'(?) of a creator with a purpose? How do you arrive at that?

It's quite an enigma (IMO), whether we look at it subjectively or. . objectively. The subjective case may not be much of a problem, as we may each and everyone have our various take on the issue. But just how do we proceed with an objective realisation of what we intend here, before drawing any conclusions at all? Sincerely, I don't know - and it seems to me that previous attempts have not even scratch the surface of that enigma.

Well, what can I say? I feared from the onset that this thread would polarise towards a issues certered around Catholcism.

Dear chukwudi44, I now understand that as Catholic, you're passionate to defend your group-identity. That's no problem to me at all. However, it is quite worrisome that your defence rests on very weak inferences and shallow conjectures that are uninformed. Please don't read that as accusatory; but let me draw just one example out of several -

chukwudi44:
Mind you st Paul of tarsus despite his enormous contribution to christianity was not actually among the twelve and can not be said to be an apostle.

There are two arguments in one statement you have put up there:

(a) Paul was not among the Twelve

(b) Paul was not an apostle

The first statement in (a) above is true, that Paul was not numbered among the Twelve. However, the second statement in (b) is patently false, for Paul was an apostle. Your argument to the contrary makes us wonder what you make of the fact that we often read of Paul as an apostle in the New Testament. In fact, Acts 14:14 there were two who were named apostles besides the twelve - "the apostle[b]s[/b], Barnabas and Paul" (note 'apostles' is in plural and applies to them both, Barnabas and Paul, which if added to the Twelve brings the number to fourteen).

Your argument denying the apostleship of Paul is twofold:

(i) that there were Twelve apostles - which means there could not have been more than twelve; and if that is the case, then the argument is refuted by Acts 14:14 that recognizes both Barnabas and Paul, making the number of apostles up to fourteen (and there are many more);

(ii) that the names of the twelve apostles are inferred in Revelation 21:14, and therefore there could not be more than 'twelve'? That again is does not mean that only twelve apostles existed all through the Christian Church, for a number of reasons:

~ the apostles which are gifts to the Church according to Ephesians 4:11 are said to be after the resurrection; the Twelve we read of were called in the Gospels before the Crucifixion;

~ Revelation is not speaking literally but rather symbolically; so there's no reason to think that there were literally twelve apostles, otherwise also in that Revelation 21 we should say that the Lamb is to literally marry a city according to verse 9 and 10.

~ even more to the point is that in the Gospels 'the Twelve' apostles included Judas; in which case, in as much as Peter recognized this fact in Acts 1:17, are you saying that Judas was one of the names of the apostles in Revelation 21:14?


All this just shows that your arguments are quite strained and your defences are weak since you're using very untrue assertions to make your point in favour of Catholicism. One would have hoped that you could hold your views about your own church soundly without denying what is so, so obvious.

Hallo guys, I trust you had a good Christmas holiday.

___________________

@mazaje,  it's amazing to find some very offbeat statements in yours, which sound to me like you're affirming the same things you decry in the ideas of other posters. An example:

mazaje:
3) Personally I know that the god is non-existent and the entire thing is the mythology of a very ignorant group of Primitive men looking for answers and for other reasons best known to them.

Please tell me, how do you know that God is non-existent? Isn't that a bit naive of you to claim such?

I really don't know or believe if what I see around are a product of random occurrence because I have never said so. All I know is that they are not a product of all the gods of man made religions.

Agreed - 'existence' could not have been the product of random occurence(s), whether or not mazaje said so; nor could we say it is the product of all the gods (in concert). But what I have been looking out for is this one thing: how does the atheist answer to the question of the source of existence as far as conerns what you 'see around'?

Man made religions and gods were all created him help provide some answers to so many questions regarding human existence and the universe as a whole.

How do you know this for a fact?

The universe as it is makes all the gods of man made religion look too insignificant and completely useless in explaining anything or helping to better understand the universe.

Mazaje, forgiveme, but people who talk like this are simply confirming that they know nothing at all. How much of the experiences of man do you know in all possible realities (including phenomena which cannot be explained by naturalism) before making such a statement? Let's assume that you're kidding; otherwise, I don't think such assertions by you are worth any merit.

As to why god create I believe youare talking about the Christian god. . . .The answer can be found in the bible.

Aside the three deductions you made (quite misfooted, I must say), I wonder what 'the' answer could be. But let's see those you made:

And from the biblical assertion mt deductions are

1)The bible god was not capable of properly designing or creating a system, hence I will say he is incompetent if that hypothesis were true.

How do you know this?

2) According to the hypothesis he is capable of designing a perfect system but did not, hence the problem of evil

Please humour me: let viaro assume for your sake that no 'God/god' exists anywhere at anytime, how does the atheist deal with the reality of evil beyond making cheap assertions like yours? Please just tell me how the atheist deals with the reality of evil in our world - from an atheistic point of reference only (ie., do not include anything about any deity). Indulge me, please.

3) Personally I know that the god is non-existent and the entire thing is the mythology of a very ignorant group of Primitive men looking for answers and for other reasons best known to them.

Again, I would ask as earlier: how do you, mazaje, know this for a fact?

[quote author=Sisi_Kill link=topic=369383.msg5175999#msg5175999 date=1261609433]Market women? Hilarious![/quote]Sisi, viaro apologises - I didn't mean 'market women' by the term 'womenfolk'.

Of course the thread is not about you. It's just a pet peeve of mine or as some have said feminism taken too far, when people automatically think anyone who can hold their own in face of opposition instead of shrinking into the corner, trembling in fear, is male.

I understand.

If you aren't pilgrim, my apologies for draggog you into the market. You do write alot like her though.

No need to apologise _{(secretly I was enjoying being mistaken for her, trust me)}

BBC Nigeria correspondent Caroline Duffield says the conflict between ethnic Fulani herders and farmers has been partially caused by climate change.

Huh?

[quote author=Sisi_Kill link=topic=369383.msg5175924#msg5175924 date=1261608473]Maybe i'm very simplistic in my thinking but i honestly didn't think this particular topic called for a back and forth argument.[/quote]Nor did I.

JeSoul:
The most perfect description of most of Viaro's posts 

Thank you, thank you. Next!

[quote author=Sisi_Kill link=topic=369383.msg5175869#msg5175869 date=1261607818]By the way, Viaro is pilgrim, yes? So that makes her a SHE.[/quote]Hehe, it would be a miracle for me being a 'she' with a 'rod' and a babe!
You NLs don't cease to amaze me. Is this thread about viaro now?

See what I mean? When womenfolk open a market, there's got to be noise somewhere! I thought I could manage by my 'mischievous' one-liners of 'if you say so' - just to avoid any problems I can't afford cash payment on. That was not enough, no matter how many times I simply made that one single-line answer.

Okay, just whatever - call me whatever makes anyone happy, I won't mind at all. My rod is my own - and merry Christmas!

Mavenb0x:
Viaro, this is just so. . . I dont know. So you still maintain that your statistics are accurately founded (yet without empirical proof!),

Excuse me?

and that you have not made any general statement?

Please read again my replies. Just exercise patience and read through.

All you showed are some threads, and if I put a shovel to it, maybe I can excavate many more threads that describe the opposite of your submission,  threads in which really helpful info was decisively shared?

Please do, if you may. You may not be putting shovel to my comments, whatever that means.

I dont think that's right of you, defending that spurious claim. But then, that's my opinion.

If you say so.

(now I brace myself for "If you say so" or a lengthy rollercoaster of a response from Viaro )

I won't go the rollercoaster on yours - no need.

Or. . . could I?

You see, Maven, I do appreciate many of the posts I read here on Nairaland from various posters; and I've noted that sometimes I misread people (often do that due to the environment I grew up in, which is not so much 'Nigerian' and makes me feel many times like a native eagle with a foreign dance). Where I happen to misread posters, I try to offer my apologies; and if that is not enough, you won't find me trailing on and on and on to 'prove' a point anymore. I just leave it there and bless (or humour) my discussant with 'if you say so'. Ever since my babe slapped me, I learnt to respect womenfolk. . . - and that's where I got the maxim: 'if you say so' _{(it made far more sense to just shut the bleep up and let women be!).}

Anyhow, viaro knew where he was coming from - and rather than ask for clarifications, hasty conclusions were made. No worries, no big deal. But for that to translate into something about a dose of my own medicine and some perceived 'ego' and all sorts, what was all that about? Where's that coming from?

I didn't expect much anyways - and in keeping with what I have learnt about respecting womenfolk, I replied, stated my case, explained where I could (and still got 'fogged' for that), blah, blah. Gosh! I knew Adam was doing well before a woman arrived on the scene!

Hehe. . that's me. Ooops! I fear a feminine slap coming. .  got to duck before it lands somewhere 'powerful' on my 'region'. Apologies. . . and -

[center][size=14pt]Have a wunnaful Christmas and New Year![/size][/center]

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=370492.msg5175128#msg5175128 date=1261597076]Covenant university is a non profit institution like St La Selle catholic university.[/quote]Okay, but could I have some evidence beyond your saying so? At least, I would have something to critique constructively so that my opinions would be well informed. Afterall, one other reason why I chose the examples deliberately (as I said earlier) would be to highlight the fact that not all claims are true - and some have been found cutting corners and contravening their own principles (e.g., University of Phoenix, UPX).

So, any evidence beyond your just-say-so?

They hope to expand from the efforts made by their benefactors. How did they build the university in the first place?. Was it not benefactors who paid for it?. How will St laselle catholic university expand since they are non profit?

But what has the Oyedepo's example of university done for the benefit of her benefactors?

beneli:
Suicide rates in the countries you mention are actually among the highest. Here is a WHO link for you to peruse http://www.who.int/mental_health/prevention/suicide/suiciderates/en/

Ah, there - you had anticipated me on that one. I had tried to draw the same point in the link I provided that says "(These figures are from the [b]W[/b]orld [b]H[/b]ealth [b]O[/b]rganization)". This is why I worry about people claiming low suicide rates for so-called 'atheist countries'.

toneyb:
There you have it somebody had already answered you ridiculous and false assertion about atheist and suicide. If you want to make this argument, you would have to explain why highly atheist countries like Sweden, Estonia and Finland have such low suicide rates. Which other lie do you have up your sleeve?

Hahaha. .  I can't laugh. My guy toneyb, that is not even an argument up there. You only are confirming a case against your own argument by acknowledging a low suicide rate for those 'atheist countries' rather than a no-sucide-rate at all. If those Scandinavian countries are anything to go by that appellation of 'atheist countries', you won't have any suicide - if that is what you want to maintain. I wonder: why are there suicides in those countries at all?

The thing is that we all share a common humanity - atheists as well as theists of all shades are as damned to commit sucides and all sorts. Atheism does not make any better score on the chart as reason for low rates of suicide, and we should be careful about citing so-called research reports making this kind of silly connections. They are illiterate non-starters for the balance of views on matters like this. Why? Well, just as some may cite sources praising such 'atheist countries' as Sweden for low rates of suicides, other sources note that the same Sweden had a close tie with religious countries like the USA in that regard. An example below:

The happiness survey, described at Nationmaster.com, has the people of Sweden third in the world, behind Iceland and the Netherlands.

The Suicide rate in close to that of the U.S. but  less than Russia. Russia in 2002 had 69.3 suicides per 100,000 people. The United States in 2001 had 10.4. In Sweden, suicides have been declining, from a high of 22.3 per 100,000 in 1970 to 13.4 in 2001. In both the U.S. and Sweden a steep rise occurs in males by age 75 -  60.9 in the U.S. and 42.2 in Sweden. Is this the result of better health care for older people in Sweden?  Maybe not. Maybe the Swedes take better care of themselves and so are in better shape in old age. Maybe a little of both. (These figures are from the World Health Organization)

http://www.fsmitha.com/world/sweden.html

I often laugh at this totally unrelated quip of helping atheism with a face-lift on issues like this - as if atheism has anything to do with low rates of suicides, murders, deaths, crimes, etc. No, my guy. . nada, nothing, zilch. Our common humanity (religious or irreligious) record these problems and have nothing to do with 'atheist countries' versus 'theist countries'.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=16905.msg468603#msg468603 date=1152016365]Em. . . let me ask it this way:

What is an acceptable approach with which one may convince me about their perspective on a matter?

I don't know if there's a 'best approach' in trying to convince me about how true one's religion is, or if is THE true one; but perhaps, I'd be more willing to listen as long as the following helpful features are not lacking:

# Don't Misquote or Misrepresent Issues
As long as my fellow discussant does not misquote a verse, text, historical antecedent; or twist whatever they are quoting out of context
to make their point (which would really be pointless)

# Don't Perplex, Rather Persuade Me
As long as my fellow discussant is not trying to complicate matters by wearing me out with long-winding arguments that lead nowhere and
they are willing to stick to the main points under discussion

# Don't Pretend, Rather Be Principled
It does not matter to me if my fellow discussant must win a point, as long as he's not pretentious and is willing to be principled in whatever
he's stating; even if I'd have to admit that my scholarship is limited on certain matters

# Choose Insight Rather Than Insult
If I can't persuade you to see my point, as long as we don't leave the Forum or a discussion with insults and ill-feelings, there's a chance to
come back for more seasoned, informed and insightful discourses

# Be Creative Rather Than Capricious
I've learnt to sympathise with the difficulties people experience in seeing things my way with the understanding that I ofetn experience the
same difficulties in seeing things their way

# Maintain A Winsome, Rather Than a Whimsical Attitude
In all things, I'll keep trying to foster understanding and tolerance across board, even where I make bold to state why and how I disagree
with my discussants.

Okay, I'm not laying down any rules for anyone; but these traits help me greatly when I engaged in sensitive and publicly affecting issues with people on this and other fora. At the end of the day, I aim to make friends and not fiends! [/quote]I love this.

Truly worrisome. The old man knows which is of more value to him - between life and position.

Thank you so very much!
Blessings will stubbornly take up residence on your life now and in the coming year.

^^^No problem. Let's progress the thread.

Pastor AIO:
Instead of Intelligence try another word: Intent.

Hehehe. .  good one. . very good one!

I thought of 'intent' as well, but felt I would be digging a ditch for myself. Akin to 'intent' are other words that crossed my mind as plan, goal, aim, objective, meaning, significance, purpose, etc., etc. . . and this thread is already asking those same questions in one apt manner: 'the Purpose of Life (why were we created?)'

However, in accord with the idea behind Deep Sight's earlier quote (Meaningfulness is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature), I thought 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier. There are two reasons why I thought so:

(a) One reason was because using 'intent' would render my comments incoherent, especially as 'intent' is synonymous with 'purpose'. So, if I were to try 'intent' instead of 'meaningfulness', and the synonyms were brought to their basic sameness (that is, 'intent' = 'purpose') then I could not say:

'Meaningfulness Intent is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose intent and a personal nature'

             . . . nor even simply:

'Purpose is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature'

On the other hand rather, I was thinking about the basic or fundamental element behind anything one might describe as a 'purpose'; and that basic element IMO would be 'intelligence'. That is because, any detectable "intent/purpose" would of necessity involve some level of 'intelligence'. In that understanding, I thought it might be better to say instead: "Intelligence is conclusive evidence of the existence of a creator with a purpose and a personal nature."


(b) The second reason why I thought that 'intelligence' might be a more apt qualifier would be that 'intent' sounded a bit more subjective to me. I mean, should someone ask me what I supposed was the "intent" (or 'purpose') of the Creator in having created us and the Universe, I immediately recognize that my own take would be subjective - descriptive only of what I might think, and not necessarily what the Creator Himself had in mind.

I have no way of peering into the Creator's mind to understand exactly the way He arrives at a decision - any decision at all - in order to form my subjective answers to the question of the "purpose" of Life in regards of creation. Indeed, this second reason stems from my understanding of such verses like Romans 11:34 - 'For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?' It's not my style to pretend to know His exact intent/intention/purpose in creation - the vast creation of the cosmos and all within it - so I often shy away from making subjective statements in this wise (statements which could apparently have the appearance of wisdom but in actuality are simply dense - see Job 38:2 - 'Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?').


So all the yada above. I thought 'intelligence' might be the basic element that points to any intent/intention/purpose detectable anywhere; and on that basis that it would be more aptly descriptive of the idea behind Deep Sight's quote.

[quote author=Aloy.Emeka link=topic=370492.msg5174065#msg5174065 date=1261586717]Don't you know the government subsidize our federal and state universities?[/quote]Well, I often hear about that (please pardon my not knowing that much in reality).

The high fees is to maintain world class standards.

People often say that; but I'm just wondering - How do we separate 'profit' from the high fees - or, how are the 'high fees' meant to be understood?.

Let me put it like this: there are indeed some Universities that are 'for-profit', an example being the University of Phoenix (UPX) in North America which is 'a private for-profit institution of higher learning' (Wikipedia). Some other universities are 'not for profit' institutions; e.g., the University of St. La Salle, apart from being a Catholic private university, is also a 'non-stock and non-profit corporation' (see Wikipedia again).

Now, one wonders where the Oyedepo's example falls into - a 'for-profit' or 'non-profit' institution?

I deliberately chose both examples above to reflect the fact of a university governed by religious principles (as in the case of La Salle University). But if you consider another example in context of the 'world standard' that you have talked about, then consider Stanford University and this report below:

Stanford University last week reported a 10 percent increase in revenues, which fueled a 77 percent jump in profits for the fiscal year ended Aug. 31.

The university reported a $250 million profit, compared with $141 million the prior year.

In a statement released Dec. 21, just before the Christmas holidays, Stanford said its revenues jumped 10 percent in fiscal 2007 to $3.2 billion, from $2.9 billion in 2006. Expenses increased six percent to $2.9 billion, up from $2.7 billion the prior year, resulting in significantly enhanced profitability.

http://sacramento.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2007/12/31/daily10.html

Aloy, this question concerning Oyedepo's university is not all that important as to cause a furor for me. In issues like this, while appreciating the effort for local pastors in Nigeria to help the education needs in the country, there must be some catch in terms of profit (whether or not they keep selling the disclaimer of being a 'not-for-profit' university). Does Oyedepo's university not hope to expand sometime in the future? If yes, how do they hope to do so - by making no profit whatsoever? Can we trust that same university by Oyedepo's effort to be as honest as the example above of Stanford University in acknowledging "increase in revenue"?

These are questions that make me wonder where to draw the line between 'profit' and 'charity' in the example of Oyedepo's university. Can you help?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=79465.msg5173913#msg5173913 date=1261585553]The bird is simply designed and streamlined with the necessary modifications for flight.[/quote]This is not 'ID' ('intelligent design') argument. . . but I'm tempted to ask: 'designed' - by who/what? No bother, just ignore that - I was thinking aloud.

I don't see the difference. The bird sees danger decides to flap its wings and soar away. . . . An engineer pushes a button and an aircraft soars away into the sky.

I see a set of differences even in the way you've just described. For one, the bird is not like a device with a botton to be pressed for flight as in the case of the craft; for second, the craft could do nothing if it 'sees' danger; besides, thirdly, birds (for the purpose of this analogy) take to flight for very many reasons of their own experiences, whereas a craft does not have an experience of its own that informs its decision for any particular flight. There's more. . but just observing that there are indeed differences (please consider them carefully).

You can push the button on another creation like the TV it won't fly why? Because it hasn't been designed with the ability to.

Agreed.

Ability is the capability to do. A plane has the capability to fly and a car does not. Its that simple.

Okay, I understand your context now (although I disagree) - and I think that answers my question initially:how does that 'ability to fly' become an 'attribute'?. Thanks.