₦airaland Forum

I sympathise with that answer; but even so, it seems that almost every religious movement I've perused have one form of ritual or the other, no matter the arguments to the contrary. Aside from the 'rituals', what disqualifies Catholics from being Christians? I'm just wondering, though.

Pastor AIO:
Na wa for you o! And you are really going to respond like that with a straight face. You no even flinch small. Anyway, like it or not I'll be there and Pilgrim's coming too.

^^^Flinch? That was yerster-years. We I comply with what's happening in the new millenium - betray friends (even the most admirable) and act like the air was always fresh!
Straight face? Here, choose your poison for the season from the options below:

[img]http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:iMhxH8mNjpG_yM:http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/5434/jossicaolbapo4.jpg[/img]       [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-ZYrV3JqLACNqM:http://iwilltryit.com/bush_straight_face.jpg[/img]        [img]http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:xTWDG6hYbAyDeM:http://immonkeyboi.files./2009/09/bush-face2.jpg[/img]

______ sorry folks, didn't mean to derail the thread.

Please, can I ask a question without being thought of as an agent provocateur?

Why do some people think that Catholics are not Christians?


_{PS. I've tried to read the thread and get the gist of the arguments for, against, and inbetween. They leave me still wondering about the question above.}

Pastor AIO:
Moonlight dey down there? Na wa o! Anyway, can I come too, please, me and my friend, a lady called Pilgrim.

Nope, just Krayo and viaro _{we can find small space in the 4th dimension to squeeze you in}. . . we have unfinished business with mavenbox - only afterwards could any other party approach!

@thread: I'm taking my time to get familiar with folks and will post my votes soon.
For now, there are just too many nice folks I've met that the choice becomes increasingly tough to make.

mavenbox:
@Krayola: Not only are you not an Atheist, but you enjoy eating your cake and keeping it. As Krayola, you are Objective. And as Viaro, you are a little less objective - in fact you are highly opinionated. That's why I said you see Viaro everyday, Dr Jekyll sees Mr Hyde every nite, too

Krayo, what do ya think? I'd always had the hunch this lady's been snooping in on us!
Seems it's high time we pay her a visit and scare the moonlight out her quarters!

[size=14pt]If you take off like that, I will hunt you down![/size]
What's happening to the drinks tonight, huh?
You think I stayed online for nuthing? Nada. Zilch.


Hehe. . pal, easy. Just kidding.

However, I don't think you have my position correct, because I do not accept that numbers are self-existent. But I am indeed willing to learn, if you can show me.

Deep Sight:
With the above, i am satisfied that like Krayola, you too have now accepted that numbers are self existent, contrary to your earlier postulation.

Pastor AIO:
You forgot to mention the mind-numbing mind-numbers.

Aaarrrgghh! I didn't want to numb his brains, you know!

Deep Sight:
Are you kidding me?

There was no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter before mankind came along?

I was trying to be succinct in my replies so that you don't get swamped by long rejoinders. If you were wondering why my simple answer 'No', then I suppose it would have been helpful to outline specifically every single question there and answer them:

[list]_________________________________[/list]

[list]

Deep Sight:
IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE,

No.

Deep Sight:
OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER?

No.

Deep Sight:
IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

No, that would not be the case.
If there were no human minds, it would not be the case that there would also be no specific quantity of moons around Jupiter - therefore my answer: 'No'.
[/list]
[list]_________________________________[/list]

Now, Deep Sight, what was so intriguing about that answer 'No'? Did you carefully weigh the import of what you asked? Huh?

That, Viaro, is not just a lie, it beggars history, reason, logic, and the plain fact of the matter that the moons have been there for millions of years, and at various points they were x in number or y in number.

What reason have you weaved into authentic history in a logical manner that has made good sense about the subject of Number? I don't think anyone is contesting that moons have been around for several millions of years; and it is not at once that all planetray moons were discovered. If you were to ask someone about 45 years ago how many moons were orbiting Uranus, the answer would have been inadequate, because 3 other moons have been recently discovered that brings the total known to date to 21. Does anyone truly know how many moons all planetary bodies have? So what are you in a hurry to launch again into this saga of swinging your scimitar accusingly against me about a 'lie'?

This is a fact, and i will not be so pendantic or trivial as to bother to argue with you or anybody on that point.

No one was arguing away at what you haven't understood. Please take some time to listen to your friends, call for clarification and never assume that you have it all neatly wrapped up.

Viaro: This statement of yours, that there was no specific quanity of moons around Jupiter before humanity reveals that you are willing to retreat into the most shocking absurdities and outright fallacies in order to defend untenable statements, while seeking an elusive game of definitions (which i will not entertain) as a diversionary tactic.

I hope my explanation suffices to call you back to station. You misread my answer simply because you did not understand your own question. So please go softly on the 'lie' detector trail.

Krayola, was more circumspect in stating the obvious in his response to my query:

Good grief, Viaro. Please go and reboot and come here with a retraction of that preposterous statement.

Hehe. .  wonder why this drunk is not willing to come to the bar tonight to booze with me!

KunleOshob:
@Viaro
As i said earlier only the God almighty is worthy of worship and Jesus is the intercessor between God and man. My using a capital G to depict Jesus as a God is simply to express that he is superior to all the lesser gods and not to equate him to the almighty God.

Sir, note:
_____________________________________________________

                        A              ||            B

                    'a God'           ||      'God'

                             Is A     =       B?

           If A is not B, then A and B are more than one 'God'.
           Which then means you're preaching two 'Gods' ('a God' and 'God')
______________________________________________________

What are you on about?

hackney:
There's God jare.
Otherwise how come i'm handsome and rich?

Aha! Here's another "proof!"

Deep Sight:
^^^ Escapist! Now you want to dodge the clear question bt descending into whirlpools of definitions eh?

No, I'm not being an escapist in this one, for which I've had to forego something else to remain online for you.

No way: that's not very fair Viaro, and i certainly will not be having it.

If you're not willing to clarify what you mean, how do we proceed?

I do ask you however to make a distinction between numeric figures and numbers in much the same way as a distinction is to be made between the word "yellow" which is only a word produced by languange, and something physical that is actually the hue which is called yellow.

I'm no mathematician, but I can clearly understand the distinctions between -

             *   numbers,
             *   numerals
             *   numericals
             *   numeric figures,
             *   numerology,
             *   number systems,
             *   number bases
             *   number-crunching

. . .  and several other identities in which numbers could be applied, such as numismatics. Dear sir, I am no mathematician but numbers fascinate me that much as that I should caution you be careful with viaro if you want to perform number-magic. And yes, between yellow and hue, there's not that much a difference between the top and bottom of the corridor, dig?

I am sure you will find a way to banter off about that analogy, clear as it is, and thus i request that you reflect on it later.

Hahahaha!! This guy is calling for an ambulance!

Because right now the present issue is my challenge, which you are trying to evade through a game of definitions!

That was no 'challenge' but a cocktail. .  a sort of toast where dinner is not expected.
I said before, meet me at the bar (Between Numbers and Law) and I'll pay for drinks. There we can sing our drunken songs. .  what say you?

I repeat my question and it is clear -

IF HUMANITY GOES EXTINCT TODAY, WILL THE NUMBER OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER CHANGE, OR COLLAPSE ALL TOGEHER? IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE "NUMBERS" ARE SAID BY YOU TO BE A FACTOR OF THE HUMAN MIND, IF THERE WERE NO HUMAN MINDS AT ALL, WILL IT BE THE CASE THAT THERE WOULD ALSO BE NO SPECIFIC QUANTITY OF MOONS AROUND JUPITER ANY MORE?

Answer: no.
Comment: but what then is 'number' as relates the existence of the universe and planetary bodies? Are you aware that nobody at present knows how many moons all planets have? What specific quantity are you on about, amico mio?

Answer Viaro! No games, no escapism!

Vroom-vroom! I'm here, no engines vamoosing from here.

The reason why I allowed you to be happy with your abstractions is because I'm not given to such cocktails. There are a few questions to be sorted out before you hope to lead me in the stupor of that 'challenge' -

* How exactly is a number self-existent?

* What does it do in itself as affecting excistence?

* How is existence dependent on number/numbers?

* What is 'number' - and which 'number' are you talking about?

* How is this 'number' different from the numbers used in science and philosophy?

* how do you determine mathematically that 'Number' is self-existent?

Let me understand you first in these matters and then we can proceed from there.

KunleOshob:
The bible never claimed that there is only one god. What we are told is that only God almighty[the creator] is worthy of worship.

No one here is gulled by this repetitive non-starter - we all know the difference the Bible states between God and gods.

The question is how you make Jesus 'a God' as apart from 'God' - that is what makes many people here suppose you're clapping around your own heresy.

Is that 'a God' the same as 'God'? If not, are you not preaching more than one 'God' in your theology?

@Deep Sight,

Thank you for trying up until now to amicably share the things you're passionate about. The only problem is that your readers (including viaro) find quite a load in them that are indeep abstract but not necessarily[i] practical[/i].

As regards numbers, again yours is appreciated - well done, you have given it a good try. Unfortunately, that still is not sturdy enough to carry it through. The thing is that numbers are not self-existent; and if you may, we could go to the thread recommended earlier (Between Law and Mathematics) and sort this out while we seep the local brew of your choice - I'll pay for drinks.

Deep Sight:
Still think Numbers are not self existent?

No, I don't think they are.

Kay 17:
christianity claims that man was formed by God from sand and you posit that the presence of DNA and its programming features suggest a designer. but how does sand and programming instructions mix? but the presence of DNA fits exactly into the evolution theory. in the 15th century, in europe, it was thought that the looks of the midwife was going to be transferred to the baby. the role of DNA is to contain the genetic information. sounds better than sand and programming mixed together.

Do I repeat my initial rejoinder to you? This is it:

viaro:
Please answer the damn questions and stop making silly excuses! When folks like you come to the end of yourselves, you want to blame your void of thought and reason on 'God'. What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up? How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

Kay 17, if you don't know what you're talking about, just shut up. You make matters worse for yourself by pretending to talk about science and yet demontrate you have no clue what you're talking about but just trashing wildly about for your lose. If you're trying to buy time, I can give you all the clocks in the world to waste as much time as you want. . . until you can reason a bit more intelligently.

Kay 17:
aren't you aware of the theory of evolution. the process of survival and reproduction and transfer of a desirable trait to the next generation. dna holds the genes. don't you see the connection.

I am aware of the theory of evolution. That was not what I asked you, Kay 17. I was asking you about DNA - and again my questions:

What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up?

How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

jagunlabi:
No, it is not silly.That is what you guys try to do every time and all the time, win debates.

Oh? And that was the reason why you're still sweating it out to win your own? Sillier than I imagined.

Point me to one.Point me to a painting that was not painted by no painter.Point me to an automobile that was not built by an automobilemaker.Just because you cannot identify the painter of a painting does not mean that the painting never had a painter.

Have you ever heard of simulacra, pareidolia and apophenia? Okay, not many people like to talk about Dawkins' designoids, but let me give you a few examples of simulacra and apophenia, where people sometimes believe that these images are pictures of the real world:

           https://www.skepdic.com/graphics/obamatoast.jpg
           Burnt tortilla where some see
           the face of Jesus - who sculpted it?

           https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Martian_face_viking_cropped.jpg
           the so-called 'face' on mars -
           who sculpted it?


          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pareidolia_false_wood.jpg
          Pareidolia of false wood painting -
          who painted it?


          [img]http://mikesplace.freeserverhost.com/Gallimaufry/VirginMaryGrilledCheese/Virgin%20Mary%20in%20Grilled%20Cheese,%20box%20print%20&%20framed%20print.jpg[/img]
          'Virgin Mary' in bread toast -
           who in the celestial heavens
           sculpted it?

If you want to argue down a religious person, then you'd have a better chance disproving the identity of the creator claimed by the religious person.That makes more sense.

This is even sillier than I thought for you! Was I trying to argue down any religious system or disproving the identity of the Creator? Are you so silly?  I asked a simple question from what you said about DNA as "proof" for the Creator - and my question was 'How?' Nothing more than that as to make you bring up this laughable quibble about my trying to disprove any Creator.

I say it does prove a creator and if you disagree, then prove to me how it doesn't.

You say it, all I wanted to know is HOW?
For me, why DNA does not prove the Creator's existence is simply because it is like Mathematics or any orther discipline that people try to use as "proof" for the supernatural. Some may make the attempt, but just HOW do they try to prove that?

Moreover, i don't care what you believe in and what gender you give the creator, afterall it is not that important since this is not about proving the ID of the creator, but just the existence there of.

Do I care what you believe either?

Kay 17:
dna carry the information or genes that is necessary for an organism to function and develop. therefore, to decipher it would take deeper in understanding evolution and even how to replicate it.

Thank you, Kay 17 for attempting an answer. I'm only afraid you didn't answer the questions - not at all. Aside the tale you're telling, please try another look at the questions and see if you have this 'core' thingy for your claim:

What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up?

How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

Your response was that 'dna carry the information or genes that is necessary for an organism to function and develop' - yes, but was anyone saying that DNA do not carry such things? Was that the question I asked? You can see it's not.

I see this thread already showing itself for which topic is the most debated this year. Hehe.

[quote author=the_seeker link=topic=362149.msg5059322#msg5059322 date=1260115801]You will not have to bother with reconcilling jesus divinty and the unequivocal unity of the only true God if you simply accept his rightful place (as a mighty prophet) as given in the Quran[/quote]Please go and take your back seat and eat your pop corn. It is no secret that Islam indicates that Allah was subject to Muhammad in many inferences. No matter how hard you try, you can't bring your quran to tell anyone about Jesus when Muslims don't even know what The Gospel is. Where is allah's injil - lost, no?

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=362489.msg5059295#msg5059295 date=1260115456]Somehow in grandmaster viaro's planet, one can't ask an honest question question without implying something. Thank goodness I was born on earth.question was simple, answer it if you can. If you can't then move over and let others who wouldn't come bore me to death with phantom assumptions tackle the question.

Last time I checked, it wasn't by force to respond to every post.[/quote]O c'mon chap! Did viaro ever say that one can't ask a question, let alone an honest question? If you didn't imply anything, your question was irrelevant - and yea, you're right: no one is required to answer questions like yours if you're dancing around unable to state quite simply what you might imply. Just let it rest.

jagunlabi:
If there is a creation, there has to be a creator of it.Simple.Why complicate issues that are so simple?To win debates?That is silly.

Lol, it is actually silly to assume anyone here is trying to win any debate. Tell us what we don't already know, and not the silly quips you make so assertively. Your reply looks like one of 'em sayings about 'a painting points to a painter', etc. Has it ever occured to you that there are pictures without anyone having painted them?

Sorry pal, DNA is no "proof" of a Creator - not that viaro does not believe in Him: yes, I most certain do. But using all these quips as "proof" of a Creator is child's babble.

jagunlabi:
The DNA technology proves the existence of a creator of a creation(the universe and all that is therein),

How?

Personally, I do not think that DNA "proves" anything about a Creator, just like Mathematics or English do not 'prove' that Creator. Perhaps the best anyone might say is that such things are tools that help us to understand the intricacies of our own existence.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=362489.msg5059248#msg5059248 date=1260114594]Again, WHAT ASSUMPTION? [/quote]The first part of your question: "If we were so intelligently designed," - what does that imply? If it implies nothing at all, the question was unnecessary, and does not need anyone to even give it a glance.

I asked a simple open and honest question. . .is that a problem?

Don't be perturbed - as you can see, no one has stated that your asking a question was a problem. Was it any problem to you that anyone should ask what you implied by your question?

KunleOshob:
For the purpose of clarity i would restate my positon. Jesus being the son of God is also a God, however God almighty who is his father is greater than him and he is also answerable to God.

This is not helpful. If you are making Jesus out to be "a God", would that not be supposing more than one God in your own theology? This is even more skewed than the Trinity that you are averse to.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=362489.msg5059181#msg5059181 date=1260113235]I asked a simple question and you're going on about what I might be asserting. How is that releavant?[/quote]If someone is not going to risk an answer out of context to your enquiry, would it not be appropriate to ask about what you implied by your initial assumption?

@Deep Sight,

Deep Sight:
Viaro: It seems that you are not able to wrap your head around the words "come out of" and what they imply or connote as per the exhange between naijababe and banom. I can't really help further, save to state that you should reflect on the statement again: "something cannot come out of nothing." This statement clearly excludes self existent things: this is obvious on the face of the words alone - read the sentence again carefully if that glaring fact elludes you,

Nothing here between naijababe's and banom's posts elude me; and I've tried somewhat to show that it does not seem that the latter was making a case for a 'god' that began to exist at some point. If he did, what was the sense in his intoning that 'God' is the UNCAUSED Cause that caused everything to come into existence? Why would he have said that, if he meant that God began at some point to exist like everything else, huh?

However, the question of "something coming out of nothing" is one that I'd lightly touched upon, viz, 'ex nihilo'. I know how difficult that might sound to you; but then you either have to explicate how creation came into existence from "something" already existing, or reflect the import in banom's take that such an idea would automatically disqualify your talk about an 'UNcaused' God.

Time does not "come out of" anything. Nor do numbers. Nor does eternity. As such, viewing God within that prism given the premise set out by Naijababe simply amounts to jumping off a cliff. And Banom presupposed that in constructing his statement. He missed the vital fact that the premise does not refer to self existent things, since it clearly talks about things that have a beginning in saying - "come out of." But i sense you may not, nay, will chose not to see the clear point. So let's leave it and look to other things.

As you may, I shall leave that and look at some other issues - else that is something I would have again highlighted to show the holes in them. As a subscript, please note that numbers are not self-existent - they are part of the invented tools that man employs in researches. Once you miss that, you miss everything, and then you can choose to open a thread to discuss that - or let's take up one that is already available but was not developed (probably because not many people had anything to say in that thread):

        Between Law And Mathematics by solosqr

Thirsty enough? Go there and viaro will meet you amicably.

^^^Krayola, I can't improve on your post. Deep Sight just seems not to get anything we're saying at all. How else can we help our dear friend, hmm?

Kay 17:
then God shuld be responsible for the evils of man since man would be subject to the programming and would be unable to act beyond what he was instructed to do. (i am not conceding to theists), just saying this contradicts the bible.

Please answer the damn questions and stop making stupid excuses! When folks like you come to the end of yourselves, you want to blame your void of thought and reason on 'God'. What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up? How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?

isorry4u:
I wonder why this creator will not modify this DNA code to fix the evil in the world. Programmers usually can fix bugs in their codes by re-writing them. Why does he/she allow free will to rule?

Please tell me how DNA is supposed to 'fix' evil in the world.

[quote author=Tudór link=topic=362489.msg5059141#msg5059141 date=1260112537]Scratch that. . . If we were so intelligently designed, why are there errors in transcription and replication of DNA which often lead to genetic disorders.[/quote]Are you by rote asserting that we are the result of an accident?

^^^noetic, you anticipated me. Questions to ask people like Kay 17, for it seems that people just like to open their mouths and spew whatever comes to their minds. Ha.
__________________

@Kay 17, you don't make any sense. .  and you can stick to your cacophony and stop pretending you understrand a dot about science.

Kay 17:
@ poster, why then did science take up the challenge to discover it? it more or less backs up the core of evolution.

What exactly is the 'core' of evolution that it backs up? How does your 'core' reason out how DNA came to be what it is in the first place?