₦airaland Forum

truthislight: there is a thing or two about this "omniscient" stuff.

When Yahweh has an interest in something he sees it true and of course, he has the capacity to know what the end of a course is going to be like.

But the bible does say that he turns his back on some one wicked and does not like to behold unrighteousness, he abandon such people to their ways.

That he knows the end result of all ways does not mean he is pushing people into any particular way, individuals have to decide that for themself, and ofcousre, he can tell the end result of the way you have chosen.

With that in mind, he can foretell the future based on the choices at hand.

O! Like i have said, when he have an Interest in doing any particular thing he sets it in motion, eg. Like the coming of Jesus christ that he foretold how and what will be and it all turned out so.

That said. He allows individual to chose their parts in life, but as a caring God he has giving guidlines on what the outcome of divers ways will lead to.

Again, his purpose must come to pass and cannot fail.

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." (Isaiah 55:11).
................

When Yahweh turns his back on people and does not like to see what is bad can hadly fit into the notion that he "preordained" all things.

When he abandon Adam to satan, he can hadly had come back to fixe Adams way that he has chased out of the garden thereby.

Ah, but you miss my point as well.

By your understanding of omniscience, can god (or any omniscient for that matter) tell you with absolute certainty, a hundred percent accuracy what you'll be doing 24 hours from now, with no chance of him being wrong, regardless of any conditions?

musKeeto: First question has almost pushed me to insanity...

It's a WTF

@dlex, are they lit simultaneously or does one finish then light the other, the sum of both independently amounting to an hour?

dlex21: 1. You have a lighter and two fuses that take exactly one hour to burn, but they don't burn at a steady rate. For example, one fuse could take 59 minutes to burn the first inch and then burn the rest of the fuse in the last minute.

How would you use these two fuses to measure 45 minutes?

2. Two men are standing on one side of a bridge and two women are approaching them. One of the men says, "Here comes my wife and daughter" to which the second man replies, "Here comes my wife and daughter". If they have not married the same woman and the women aren't pregnant, how is this true?

2. Are father and son, women are mother and daughter
Son marries mother
FatheR marries daughter

Mr_Anony: Yes Ithat is what I have said minus the bold. God is not a temporal being so time for Him is not a sequence of events as it is for you. The part in bold does not follow because knowing what you will do does not equate to making you do it.


The fact that you don't like or understand an argument doesn't make it flawed.

Drop it, there is absolutely nothing, in any language to understand there. It's basic 123 for crying out loud. Covering it up with sophism borders on disgusting. Time travel or what not, irrelevant. All that matters is god knows with absolute certainty and cannot be wrong, shikena. That means there is only one path to follow despite any other imaginable parameters, ANY AT ALL.

This is logic 101. In fact, it's probably an SSS class. If you think it wrong, fine, your prerogative. But to go around feeling you're some sort of oga of logic when you cannot see such a basic problem (that most xtians with a brain admit exists incidentally, well, ashe they aren't all as dishonest or deluded, but really, there's no way to escape it as it's glaringly obvious), that's downright comical, and I will call you out.

Mr_Anony: The above is a non-answer. I believe that the future isn't fixed like a movie but has multiple possible outcomes and so I have defined omniscience thus as one who knows all possible outcomes resulting from all possible causes. This allows for free-willed individuals (or to be more to the point, people with freedom of choice). That is my definition of an omniscient being.

If the future is fixed, then it is only one possible outcome. The definition holds.
If the future is variable, then there are multiple possible outcomes. The definition still holds.

The definition holds regardless of whether you think individuals have freewill or not. I don't see your point. . .but then of course you never had a position to begin with.

It has been nice playing with you.

Hmm, like I've said many times, I wasn't the one being asked questions in the first place, so of course it's a non-answer.

So, you claim there are multiple paths anyone could take using free will, yet you specifically say god knows with 100% accuracy what you are going to do and he cannot be wrong. He knows with 100% accuracy what you are going to do with your free will and he cannot be wrong? Thereby implying that no matter what you do with your free will, you must follow his script? You say this with a straight face?

Don't go around claiming you have some sort of superior logic when you clearly do not. This is pure nonsense, it's m.oronic, as in I read your posts these days with a facepalm. You are sheeple, brah. Fanatic-like sheeple, just masked a bit. Well, not masked well at all, but masked

Mr_Anony: So is it your position that reality and the future is fixed and it must happen a particular way? Yes or No

Do have reading comprehension problems? Do I have to say it in yoruba or igbo? Or what do y'all call it, cockney?

MY POSITION DOES NOT MATTER. The whole point was to get your definition, not mine. This is about you, not me..

If you need more than that, my position is my position does not matter, at all. Wtf? And I have non on this matter, non, mostly because I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD(S). My stance on freewill, predermination, etc, absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion, they would not have god in their equations. And I'm not trying to push my view on you, I'm trying to get your definition.

Let me give you even more in case you don't get it. My position is that your position, no matter how you try to dress or hide it, or your being blinded by whatever, leads to this conclusion; a fixed future that cannot be changed. Again, that is your conclusion, not mine.

Do you agree with this? Is it so? If not, why not?

Again, if god is omniscient, if god cannot be wrong, then the future is already set in stone, hence non of us have free will. If I'm wrong, show me how, else meh.. My own position has nothing to do with this discussion. Sheesh

Chris†Kid:
ehn so where is it from? Your topic says facebook and God didn't it? You atheists claim only ignorants are religious, i dont expect to be finding you all here. I expect to be seeing you guys in politics and science sections more. Sadly thats not the case, you lot think about God 24/7 even more than theists! Why don't you preach your faith atheism to me?

Did I say god is not in schools, or did some of you xtians yourselves say it? I am simply reposting what some of y'all said

Even when I ask for people to contribute, I did not say 'xtians, come contribute'. I said theists.

The universe does not revolve around xtians and your concept of god, but as you're proving to be sheeple, I'm sure you find that hard to understand

So now, try and consider the universe does not revolve around you my good xtian, did you notice that this section is for both atheists and theists? Do you know I could spend my time discussing secular issues with people interested? If jobless, go through my posts and please count how many times you'll find me uninvited in an xtian-only thread. If I do find myself in one, notice how I leave fairly quickly and in some cases even apologize.

But regardless, even if I felt the need to discuss god out of some sense of shall we say civic duty, out of concern for naija or the world in general. Let's say I felt some sort of injustice was perpetuated by you religious peeps and hence I was here constantly derailing the xtian-only threads, you've not explicitly stated what's wrong with that. Or are you saying I shouldn't care because I'm not xtian? So lincoln shouldn't have cared about black slaves because he was white?

You sound stoopid. If you don't have anything of value to contribute, leave.

Chris†Kid:
OP you dey try o. You spend all your time on nairaland even on facebook talking about God you donnt believe. O chim o. #facebook things

https://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/429480_562423920451082_903596074_n.jpg

Not very accurate. I spend most of the time talking about religion. And even if I did, trust me, that's an inane argument. This is not from facebook *smh*. Don't you have anything better?
Any theists?
Meh...

Incredible. You never cease to amaze me. The levels of honesty here are again at that nadir that only you seem capable of reaching. Or you may actually done yourself proud and reached new depths. You level so many silly little accusation against me then end it with a show of indignation. It beggars belief


Now, we're doing this to determine your definition of omniscience, not mine. My world view is not in question here, how you arrived at the conclusion that my world view is relevant would be beyond any sane man's comprehension abilities.

Mr_Anony: As I said you have a poor understanding of what it means to be omniscient.

Dictionary definition of omniscience

www.google.com/search?client=ms-opera-mini&channel=new&redir_esc=&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=omNiscience+definition

1. Knowing everything

Wiki definition of omniscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

"Omniscience ( /ɒmˈnɪʃəns/[1]), mainly in
religion, is the capacity to know everything that
there is to know."

(Note, you don't even have to go far down that page to see xtian philosophers already redefining the term to accommodate free will, and other xtians fully accepting predestination. Yet you somehow fail to see where the problem, or are at least trying to hide it)

Now, note again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with my understanding what omniscience is, what I don't understand is the anonyverse definition you give which you try to pass off as logical. It is not, in any way, shape or form. So trying to make it sound like I don't know what standard omniscience is, while you somehow have some sort of superior, truer understanding of the word, is a bit irritating and of course, dishonest. Moving on...

Mr_Anony: No is not in anyway contradictory. Yes he would know what you were going to ask before you ask, he would know exactly what you were going to do after he interferes he would know whether you would still go ahead and do what you wanted to do or whether you would change your mind and do something else but since he won't deny you of your free will. Yes he cannot gain knowledge he knows all possible outcomes.

This is a bit of a ramble actually, maybe with better punctuation I will get it. But from what I can tell, you have just said he knows with absolute certainty what is going to happen in the future. Yes?

Again, this is very, very, very simple. Your supposed free will or not, his supposed free will or not, so long as he knows with absolute certainty what you are going to do, and neither of you can change that choice, that is the very definition of predestination. There is only one future that can actually take place. This is the conclusion of your assertion, not mine, from the descriptions you've given. The description that he cannot, under any circumstances, be wrong. How you want to turn this around and put this on me is beyond me.

Mr_Anony: The problem I believe you have is that you sort of view life like a scripted movie where events can only happen in one fixed manner and an omniscient being would be someone who has watched the movie before. Is this your view on reality?

If this is your view on reality then you do not have free will. But if you have freewill, then my description of omniscience fits perfectly.

See above. Then explain to me how this response to the question posed about being his being completely accurate and incapable of being wrong does not translate to a pre-written script

"Yes, He is able to tell you with a 100%
certainty, No, there is no chance of Him
being wrong."

So long as he knows exactly what you are going to do, and no matter what either of you do, no matter what new knowledge you may gain (and note, he himself cannot gain new knowledge), you will follow the script, how in the world can you call that free will?

Mr_Anony: This would mean that you don't have freewill because here you are insisting that there is only one possible outcome of events and an omniscient being is one that knows this singular outcome. That is not the description I gave.

Again, above

Mr_Anony: this is true but then again it would also imply that an omniscient being cannot be temporal but must transcend time.

I'm not sure how came to this conclusion. But regardless, whether he can time travel or not is irrelevant. All that matters is; does he know everything? Your response of 'yes'
is all that's needed to void free will.

Mr_Anony: As I have said, if you insist on using "under any condition" then you are implying that the future is fixed and therefore there can only be one possible outcome. So once again, my answer is Yes, since he knows all possible outcomes, if it so happens that there is only one possible outcome then it follows that he will know that too.

Again, blatant dishonesty. I asked you would he know the answer in any possible condition, your response was an unequivocal 'yes'.

So again, WTF? This is your conclusion

Mr_Anony: No I didn't. the need for a friend is so that you can crosscheck that he predicted your actions accurately unless you hold that the future has only one fixed outcome, in that case you wouldn't need a friend because the singular future will just happen to you anyway.

Wt heck does this mean? You need a friend to verify? This is simple, is he never wrong? Your answer is yes? The friend or no friend or orgy or not, all is irrelevant. All that matters is as he can never be wrong, whatever he tells you, whatever path you follow, you cannot deviate from his conclusions. No matter what either of you do.

Again, your conclusion, not mine.

Mr_Anony: The reason why you are having this problem is because you by nature are a temporal being so the future is not known to you and therefore you only have one choice out of many and you cannot know the outcome of your choice before you make it.
An omniscient being is not temporal but can act temporally, so he doesn't share your problem. An omniscient being would have a multidimensional reality and so time for such a being would not be a fixed set of events but him in multiple simultaneous events.

How is an omniscient being not temporal? What do they have to do with each other except for the fact that an omniscient can tell you (note, not predict) what's going to happen? What you mean to say is your god is not temporal. Fine, but like above, this matters not. All that matters is 'does he know everything?'

Mr_Anony: Nope God has a separate will from us but because he knows you completely, He knows what you will do next. This doesn't mean you are not the one making your decisions. It is just like saying that because someone has the ability to read your mind therefore your thinking is not yours. It doesn't follow.

Are you changing your definition of omniscience to his not knowing the choice you will make, just the list of choices available to you, yes or no? If not, this is again irrelevant and really why are you wasting time? So long as he knows what choice you are going to make with absolute certainty, you cannot deviate from the path no matter what you may do, thus you obviously don't have free will.

Mr_Anony: I think you have to come clean and say what you think the future is like. Is it a fixed sequence or does it vary depending on what precedes it? So far you have been swinging between both veiws. You can't have it both ways.

I have to come clean for what ffs?! 4k. We're talking about your view here, which I assume you would claim is the official xtian one (though just about everyone here seems to dispute that). You accuse me of swinging both views, ffs that is what you are doing.
un4king-believable

Mr_Anony: This is not worth my response

Oh, the shame! The horror! Really... You claim to be actaully logical...

Mr_Anony: Of course anything that doesn't fit into your worldview is brainwashing.



The simple answer to this question is Yes....

-The more complex answer......but then by telling you, He would have interfered with the sequence of events and then it will lead to another of the possible outcomes.
Perhaps the best way to really test this is that you and a friend ask the Omniscient one what you will do in 5 mins. The omniscient one tells you what you will do (or rather what you intend to do) but he tells your friend both what you intend to do and what you will do now that He has told you.
You purposely make sure you change your plans and do something else then you ask your friend and your friend tells you what you have done. An omniscient being would be able to predict both accurately. Get the picture now.

The bolded is brazenly contradictory. As an omniscient he should have known that he would interfere with the sequence of events before he actually did. He would also have known all possible outcomes, like you have been claiming, ahead of time. He would have known that I was going to ask him before he met me, and he would have known he would send me down whatever path, all before he met me. He cannot have any new thoughts, he must have known everything, including his own future thoughts. Else that would clearly mean he was not omniscient, as I would have made something he did not know about, a new choice.

A true omniscient by the definition you give below, would be able to tell me exactly what I would do, and nothing I could do would change the course of my actions. With or without the knowledge or my attempts to stop it. He tells me for instance I will fall of a cliff, regardless of whatever actions I take, one way or the other, I would fall of that cliff at the expected time. If I can change my fate, then that means he did not know which path I was going to take, he was just aware of all the possible paths. Again, basic stuff

So, again, by definition an omniscient being cannot learn any new thing, yes? Else that would mean he didn't know something, that's not very omniscient.

So which is it, can he tell you exactly what is going to happen under any condition or not? And would he be 100% accurate?

Mr_Anony: You are not talking about predictions yet you want a 100% accurate prediction (lol.....the things I see on Nairaland). Read my answer above.

Yes, He is able to tell you with a 100% certainty, No, there is no chance of Him being wrong.

You implied above there is chance of him being wrong, hence the workaround of two friends just to make sure he's right.... For crying out loud...

Now, if this is your final answer, if there is no chance of him being wrong, then it would mean he does not have free will. It would mean he cannot have "new" thoughts. Every single thought he himself was going to make he would know ahead of time. No matter what he does he cannot change the course of his own actions. If he did change his projected path, he wouldn't be omniscient, as clearly he just learned something new, he made a choice he did not know he was going to make. So an omniscients path is already predetermined as well.

So, as all is his will, and every thing is predetrmined, explain to me how is it we have free will ourselves? We deviate from the path god already knows we will take, that would mean god is not omniscient, as he would have been wrong, yes? However, as we can't deviate, no matter what we try to do, then that is the very definition of determinism. So now, with these conditions and your definition, how do any of us, god included, possess free will if he's omniscient?


And you go around claiming you somehow have good logic...

This one is older, some might have seen

It's now rather sad...

Don't you have any more pics of lions and hyenas? That would at least mask some of your stoopid. Also no sagatarded post is complete without those, and of course an army of strawmen.

For one, you imb.ecile, you shifted posts several times on this thread. You refused to answer simple questions lucidly, and provided asinine definitions when eventually cornered. While fumbling and feeling the heat you brought out criteria from 3 years ago, which you may or may not still agree with. Either ways, looking at your criteria, it was all pretty much met actually, hence your shenanigans continued. In order to mask your failure, at one time or the other it was

gay people have to have co.itus...
females can't be gay...
Both sexes have to be gay...

WTF do you smoke? These demands are worthy of consideration as the most asinine reasoning on NL you mo.ron. None of them are on your 3 year old list of course, you just created the ultimate in egregious strawmen and post shifting on the fly to compound on the already rank stoopidity you had displayed.

You've gotten examples, and an ample supply at that. Also terms clarified for your reta.rded ass. As well as other arguments, like the flies altered to become gay, proving you can biologically turn some animals gay. You've refused to explain why your argument holds either ways, even if there really were no ghey animals. Again, why don't you rap.e your mother? It happens a lot in nature. And why are you typing and reading, surely these activities are not natural? Or you know any animals in the wild that can type?

My work here is done. Work on your stoopid when you can, it may be beneficial.

Kudos

Mr_Anony: tricks?

Yes, as if you're being honest then there's some pretty strong brainwashing interfering with your thinking, or you genuinely cannot see something so simple.

Mr_Anony: That's the thing, an omniscient being doesn't have the problem of "unforseen events" he has seen how all possible outcomes play out.

And where did I dispute this? What does this have to do with anything, or are you purposely misdirecting?
All that matters is this: If I ask god to tell me exactly what am I going to be doing in exactly 5 minutes, can he tell me with complete certainty, 100%? Of course, this also asks, would he be 100% accurate?
Can I diverge from that path, or not?

Yes, nos, if you can please.

Mr_Anony: I'd like to see how you can consistently predict something accurately and yet not know it.

I am not talking about predictions here, stop this. It's fairly annoying strawman or whatever you're doing. I am talking about certainties. Can he tell me with a hundred percent certainty what I will be doing? Would there be any chance of his being wrong? Simple yes/no would be good.

Meh, facebook general thread

Theists, get in here and produce your retorts as well

Here's another genius facebook post.

Logicboy03: Your criteria based on stale air from your azzhole?

Yes, that very much describes his rather subjective and uncertain criteria. Thank you very much.
Changing positions left, right and centre. Shooting himself in the foot. You'd think he was running for some office, like maybe the Master Local Champion.

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

You mean I shifted posts and defined parameters by shifting and defining 3 years before the date?

https://www.nairaland.com/279591/could-it-really-person-born/16#3990475

Or you must have "imagined" that was not me making that definition?

You are a what?

A person!

Fooooooooooooooooooool!

AND I would like for you to not ignore the bolded below, rather than try to stall or some stoopid $hit.

wiegraf: And shift posts and redefine his parameters. Or claim there are no 'true' ghey females when it fits his agenda. One of the dumbest things I've come across on NL, and that's quite the achievement of course. Ignore posts. Mask inanity in rhetoric (or whatever shouting f.ucktard is). Chest thumping like a gorrilla, he might as well pick up their ghey as well if he's insistent on doing only natural things, and do some p.enis fencing like bononos while he's at it. And r.ape his mother. And kill babies. And not use the internet or watch tv, etc. Basically disregard science. Or insist his gf digests him after they have s.ex. Etc etc etc

Of course, not state his case clearly as well.

ADD riddled and shallow...meh

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

You mean I shifted posts and defined parameters by shifting and defining 3 years before the date?

https://www.nairaland.com/279591/could-it-really-person-born/16#3990475

Or you must have "imagined" that was not me making that definition?

You are a what?

A person!

Fooooooooooooooooooool!

Let's explore the various tactics of a species of eediot, sagatards, in action. Shall we?

Sagamite: So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

wiegraf: Define gay, eediot.

Simple question

Sagamite: You are a person if you don't know what gay means in the context of the thread you are on.

Is that your way of attempting to run?

You scared, nigga? You scared!

Pussyclat!

Sagamite: You are a person!

Stop stalling. If you are going to run, run!

Pussyclat!

So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?

*Come on hyena. Take the bait. Move closer to the Lion*

Sagamite: You are a person!

I asked you a very simple question, ANSWER IT!

"So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?"

Why are you a pussyclat?

You come on a thread about homosexuality and your cretinous arsse is asking for definition of 'gay'. That is you attempt at stalling your slaughter?

wiegraf: You could slaughter me by answering my question though. It would be easy too

After I became mildly irritated

Sagamite: Whoo! The 2 hyena fucktards are back after running.

Even 8 Hyenas can never take on a Lion.

wiegraf: You moronic ego has taken a bash and you came back?

Okay gay means a homosexual.

Now tell me, "So person you want to tell me if there are gay animals?"

Logicboy03: You are a person that says there are gay animals, you still stand by that?

Lets hear your moronic arguments for homosexuality.

Please don't run.

You could have just condensed most of those posts to one sentence. Just the one immediately bolded above. Note how long, and how much work was involved in getting you to do one simple thing, define your term. And note, that despite all that dancing around, you could only come with a moronic and inane definition.

Now, dictionary meaning of homosexual

Someone who practices homosexuality; having a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex

or

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual

"1 : of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex
2 : of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex "

But let's take wiki's definition, which stresses primary interest

"Homosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As an orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectionate, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex; "it also refers to an individual's sense of personal and social identity based on those attractions, behaviors expressing them, and membership in a community of others who share them."

Of course, as you're an im.becile, I have to do your work for you. Official descriptions are simple enough, but you stress your definition as including orientation. I had define it for you so we don't waste time, yes? So we have a definition now, yes?

wiegraf: Sagamite, you du.mb $hit, of course gay means homosexual.

There is plenty gay activity in the animal kingdom, that is undeniable.

So ghey sex documented everywhere.

As for exclusively gay animals, which is what your inane argument will revolve around (and which is what I wanted you to explicitly specify your royal retar.dness, hence the question), it is not as common, but still exists in the animal kingdom. Famous penguin same sex couples are known for instance. Roughly 10% of rams would rather ghey sex. 33% of a flock of albatross and a lot more documented cases are mentioned in this article

www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/magazine/04animals-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Examples and a link.

Sagamite: You are a person!

So your moronic arsse waited till late into the night when I would soon be heading to bed to come out from hiding despite constantly being on the viewing list?

Is gay behaviours in animals evidence of animals being gay?

Your moronic arsse does not know there is nothing we are that is natural that is not in the animal world?

Let me protect you from making a moronic statement by warning you in advance so you don't get too burnt to eat: understand the meaning of natural before you comment on it.

Show me or direct me to where there are exclusively gay animals. And don't give me a tome in the middle of the night after you ran for hours. Dig out the area of the article you think validate your point and post it.

Cretin!

First bolded. What sort of gay? You've not stated you eediot. But what you mean is more or else orientation, or primary interest. You had not stated that, I had to for you, more or else. So now, I'll count it as the first instance of you shifting goal posts.

Second bolded, you do not define a term earlier, 'natural', but seek to use that to get an advantage here. Consider also, that you've shown clearly that you're quite the re.tarded and need others to define your terms for you (while you shout 'fu.cktard')

Third bolded again, stressing your shifting post. You've now added 'exclusive'

wiegraf: On the very first page, oh ignorant one

The evidence

Sagamite:

The 2 person hyenas that I was calling out throughout yesterday and they were running like sissies waited till I went to bed to start screaming "where is the Lion"?

Even the cretin called logic boy that was avoiding answering a question got all boastful and more confident and finally screamed "there are gay animals".



So you believe there are gay animals but you could not answer my question asking you that simple question yesterday for over 2 hours until you saw another hyena show up and you confidence grew?



Pussyclats!

Now lets have a BURN FIRE!

So person wiefgraf, I said you should show me gay animals and you went to bring me an article (after running for hours) late in the night where this is in it:

Young would never use the phrase “straight couples.” And she is adamantly against calling the other birds “lesbians” too. For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have s.ex, and Young isn’t really sure, or comfortable judging, whether that technically qualifies them as lesbians or not.

So let me summarise:

1) Even the article itself and the scientitst do not claim the animals are gay.

2) The birds do not have sex.

3) The birds incubate eggs which was produced through sex.

So, person, that is your evidence that they are gay animals?

You are a person! Say "Yes, Sir"!

Your evidence of gay animals is to show us birds that are exhibiting gay behaviours, not ones that are gay.

You are a person!

Come back here for your roasting!

I would not even worry about the person called Logicboy03 because I know his liver would have gone by now and he would be running. He would wait till the lion is sleeping before he starts ranting and giving opinions.

First bolded, the irony is staggering

Second bolded, just hold on to that. Then add this which was stated immediately after, in the same @deity damned paragaraph, she explains why she doesn't call them gay, something you seem to have missed:

new york times: But moreover, the whole question is meaningless to her; it has nothing to do with her research. “ ‘Lesbian,’ ” she told me, “is a human term,” and Young — a diligent and cautious scientist, just beginning to make a name in her field — is devoted to using the most aseptic language possible and resisting any tinge of anthropomorphism. “The study is about albatross,” she told me firmly. “The study is not about humans.” Often, she seemed to be mentally peer-reviewing her words before speaking.

Her criteria for determining homosexuality are different from ours, you eediot.

Third bolded. You've now added another criteria, specifically coitus, or actual penetration between a male and a female. Why do I conclude that, because they specifically say this:

"For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do"

And from that article, on that very page before you get to the bit you've quoted (out of context) they state this:

new your times: [b]Once together, pairs will copulate and collaboratively incubate a single egg for 65 days. They take shifts: one bird has to sit at the nest while the other flaps off to fish and eat for weeks at a time. Couples preen each other’s feathers and engage in elaborate mating behaviors and displays. “Like when you’re in a couple,” Marlene Zuk, a biologist who has visited the colony, explained to me. “All those sickening things that couples do that gross out everyone else but the two people in the couple? . . . Birds have the same thing.” I often saw pairs sitting belly to belly, arching their necks and nuzzling together their heads to form a kind of heart shape. Speaking on Oahu a few years ago as first lady, Laura Bush praised Laysan albatross couples for making lifelong commitments to one another. Lindsay C. Young, a biologist who studies the Kaena Point colony, told me: “They were supposed to be icons of monogamy: one male and one female. But I wouldn’t assume that what you’re looking at is a male and a female.” [/b]

Anyone with half a brain would deduce that when she says this:
"For one thing, the same-sex pairs appear to do everything male-female pairs do except have s.ex"

She means all they don't do together is actual pipi penetrate vagoo. That is all they do not do. Therefore, as you're moaning about lack of co.itus making them not gay, your criteria for being gay after being shown gay animals is to now include the gay animals having co.itus. Something possible only between a male and female.

Do you understand how 4king stoopid you are now?

And again, shifting goal posts again, to include something impossible no less.

wiegraf: Anyways, like I already stated, 10% of rams prefer gay (I hope I at least don't have to point out rams are male, yes?). Famous penguins, etc as well. Hint, google 'exclusively homosexual animals' if you need more.

But I'll give you just a little more here though. They later describe some scientists that altered some flies and turned them ghey, and the 10% ghey rams have noticeably different brains from the rest of the population. So there you go a biological basis. Some animals can be born, or be modified to become, ghey.

Okay, since it seems you want co.itus, I can at least give you penetration by male homosexual animals. Note of course, that with this stance you now imply there are no true gay lesbians. I pointed this out to you, but knowing how eediotic you are, I just indulged anyways. So there you have it, gay male animals, which I have already shown you, of course. I also provide evidence of biologically altering animals to become gay as a bonus.

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

I told you to show me gay animals you are telling me "described as behaving like loving couples". Is gay behaviour equals gay, cretin?

Foooool, you "imagined they might have"? That is your evidence. YOU ARE A person!

Show me animals that have no interest in the opposite s.ex like the gays we have.

person, and if you had any brains, your best and most convincing chance is to find animals that are close to humans. Cretin, PRIMATES!

But feel free to use any animal you can find that is gay, don't say Saga is restricting me. I am just advising your moronic arsse.

Don't come back here to show me animals exhibiting gay behaviours, show me gay animals! FOOOOOL!

First bolded I just find hilarious. And it's a ridiculous strawman. If I have to show you how then there is no hope for you, really.

Second bolded, mmm, I just did, more than once even, and both sexes to boot. Strawman or whatever you're doing much?

Third bolded, leading up to another strawman, I'll call it strawman B

Sagamite: person, if you want to show me a gay animal, make sure you have a brain and meet the following criteria:

a) The animals for the study must be in their natural setting hence nothing is forcing them to show unnatural traits as the aim of the research is to show a NATURAL behaviour.
b) The animals must have access to both sexes of animals for intercourse but yet specifically and exclusively choose same s3x intercourse over opposite gender intercourse.
c) The gay animals must be a sub-set of the animals, not all the animals, as this shows some where born gay and some straight, not an overly sexed specie.
d) The subset of gay animals must be decently large percentage of the animals and they frequently demonstrate this desire/behaviour. It is not a SINGLE, RARE OCCURRENCE which shows a crazed animal. Remember a crazed animal is not a gay animal. Otherwise all we have proved is that animals too have mad ones.
e) There is penetration and expulsion as this shows that it is actually a pleasurable se.xual intercourse that has resulted from AROUSAL of the mating animals and they want to get at it just like same s3x do.
f) Ideally also show that there is exhibition of mating rituals between the animals as this proves that those gays that behave (talk, dress, walk etc) like the opposite gender are not some demented souls but this criterion is relaxable as I know it is hard to show.
g) Ideally also show at least 10 different types of animals that demonstrate all these, but this is also relaxable because I am confident one cannot even be found.

f and g are relaxable so you don't claim I am stifling your moronic arsse!

The mother of all post shifting. I will ignore this for now. Don't even think I've read it more than once

wiegraf: Do you think I don't know about bonobos and their p.enis fencing? Ffs iirc, I was the one who actually mentioned them to you on your last fu.cktardric adventure in /religion. I choose these birds for reasons I highlight in my post, but your reasoning skills are so good they completely missed them. According to your definitions, a sizable amount of those bonobos are just performing 'gay behaviors' (in your speak), these birds on the other hand are the real deal. They simply don't have p.enises you clown. And if lack of sausage is your problem oh shallow mind, what of the ghey rams anyways?

You also failed to note that in my 'imagine' paragraph I explicitly state that I might be wrong, depending on how they keep their records. I even go further and state that regardless, that point doesn't matter. I leave them in the post just to show the depth of your thinking.

These just highlight your folly.

First bolded, showing your strawman B. Deliberately changing history or reinterpreting it.

Second bolded, showing another strawman. Deliberately skipping details to misinterpret my position.

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, Sir".

So you can't prove they engage in sexual pleasure?

You moronic arsse keeps on emphasising female? Is it only females that are in those birds? What about the males? Why can you not show me they engage in coi.tus?

So, person, you believe those birds are gay when only the females engage in the gay behaviour? Only the females are gay? FOOOOOOOOL

If animals are gay both the male and female would be gay.

You are a person! Bonobos are highly sexually charged animals, not gay animals. They even rub their di.cks on trees that does not make them arbosexuals, cretin!

Gay animals will meet criteria (b) and (c), you dumb shyt! Bonobos fail!

Your moronic arsse brought "I imagine" as evidence to Sagamite?

You are a person!

First bolded, wow. In your defense you've added 'pleasure' and tried to hide your emphasis on co.itus, probably after realizing your eediocy of implying only male animals can be gay (good sign that you can at least do that). Shifting post again, cowardly. You think the play on words, adding 'pleasure' here, will give you an advantage if you can somehow hide your earlier gaffes. By say, obfuscating by bringing up bonobos and stressing other inane $hit, strawmen, like what I'm going to show below.

Second bolded, you lifted the levels of re.tardation, again. Goal post shifting, now both sexes must have gay members. So they are not gay unless there are gay males? You 4king im.becile. So if there were no lesbian humans that would mean that gay men were not homosexual? 4ck you're stoopid. Anyways, strawman again. And note, there probably are gay males in virtually every vertebrate species at least, there just wouldn't be many. In this particular species it seems they just don't steal eggs (unlike penguins, which actually do). But that's besides the point.

Third bolded, strawman B again. I've told you the exact same thing, more than once sef.

wiegraf: And what of the rams? Even on the basic, introductory wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals

"One report on sheep cited below states:

Approximately 8% of rams exhibit sexual preferences [that is, even when given a choice] for male partners (male-oriented rams) in contrast to most rams, which prefer female partners (female-oriented rams). We identified a cell group within the medial preoptic area/anterior hypothalamus of age-matched adult sheep that was significantly larger in adult rams than in ewes...[29]

In fact, apparent homosexual individuals are known from all of the traditional domestic species, from sheep, cattle and horses to cats, dogs and budgerigars."

Wiki -> sources.

And just about every other thing you ignored in my post? Like the flies turned ghey?

http://www.livescience.com/2094-homosexuality-turned-fruit-flies.html

Or the different physiology of the ghey rams

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study.html

These as proof for biological factors in the ghey. And all the other things you willfully, or stoopidly, ignore or fail to comprehend in my post?

Enjoy another article, this one from Time this time

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1582336,00.html


And the birds are gayer then your bonobos you dip$hit, another time article written by someone with a functioning brain may perhaps explain to a sagatard what I mean. Hopefully, he can dumb $hit down to your level

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1905237,00.html

"[b]One particularly charged finding is that in most species besides humans, same-gender pairings rarely lead to lifelong relationships. In other words, when one attractive bonobo male eyes another in a lovely patch of Congo swamp forest, they occasionally kiss and then move on to other oral pleasures, but they don't bother anyone afterward about trying to legalize their right to an open-banana-bar ceremony. In fact, they are likely to move on to girl bonobos: most animals that engage in same-gender sex acts do so only when an opposite-sex partner is unavailable.

And yet the study's authors, Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk of UC Riverside's biology department, report some exceptions, like the laysan albatross. Last year, researchers studying a Hawaiian colony of albatrosses found that nearly a third of all the couples involved two females who courted and then shared parenting responsibilities. (Albatrosses don't have U-Hauls, so no lesbian jokes, please.) Male chinstrap penguins also form long-term relationships, at least in captivity. And some male bighorn sheep will mount females only after the females adopt male-like behaviors.[/b] "



EDIT: Google, brah, is a useful tool. For instance, this is fun, and actually sourced

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-25-gayest-animals

First bolded, note also how they stress that every domesticated species has primarily gay animals, just not too many in some of their ranks

The second bolded, again, related to your silly strawman B. And why am I explaining to you how your position works anyway?

Third bolded, 25 4cking sourced cases of homosexuality as I had to define it for you (ie, orientation), in 25 different species...

The rest of the post is just awesome, related to biological differences and their correlation to homosexuality, which you've been ignoring

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

When did I post it? No, I did not post it, I bribed Seun to slot it in 5 minutes ago, moooron!

The criteria is dumb? How? Because it is above your level of thinking? That is the kind of challenge geniuses would put forward to even any Harvard professor instead of moronically nodding your head to whatever anybody with a PhD says.

Instead of even wasting time typing epistles, let me challenge your moronic, dumb, cretinous arsse to state why you think the criteria is dumb.

Let me clunk your daft brain with that your cretinous assertion first.

Oya, I am listening.

No, you 4king eediot, you don't even know what your assertions are. And I've already told you, virtually all the valid things in that list have already been demonstrated.

Sagamite: You are a person!

Say "Yes, sir".

So I told you to show me an homosexual animal and then you show me a bisexual animal?

Is that not a matter of "are you reetarded?" or "what schools failed you?"

Cretin!

Just left this in for gigggles. Highligts your eediocy.

Man, I wanted to play some vidya games and maybe do a bit of work, yet I spent an hour plus on this $hit. Far too much folly for one person one would have thought, and I couldn't even cover it all. I'll be editing it hopefully soon. So, considering the resources I've expended on you, I would have to say your trolling was effective, good work sagatard! Though, again, I'm probably giving you too much credit, as most of that was not deliberate, it was rather genuine re.tardation

Also, don't worry, I know you have ADD as well, so you can digest this at your pace. Re.tard

Thanks again, and

Evil Brain: Sorry about all the double posts btw. Opera Mini and rubbish internet are a bad combination.

Oh yes, I know that feel. I have to submit twice, I don't know why. I'm not sure who to blame, is it opera that doesn't support standards or NL? Or worse, both? Easy for me to sit here and criticize, but these are salaried workers in profit making enterprises and not some open source thing, even if the service is free.

Your tricks border on being silly

Mr_Anony: Did you know that you were going to type this question before you typed it?

No. I may have planned to, but any number of unforeseen events could have happened and prevented it

Mr_Anony: What part of predicting the end of the game did you not understand?

There is a very, very clear difference between predicting what is going to happen and knowing exactly, with full certainty, what is going to happen. So answer the question.

Mr_Anony: Perhaps I should use an analogy here.

Imagine a game with an infinite number of chess games being played by an infinite number of players.
Observing this game is a being who know every possible move and every possible result of the move therefore he can predict every game accurately from start to finish. We'll call him the chess master.
No move can really take this person by surprise. He would know it and know all of it's consequence. This however does not mean the games are fixed nor does it take away the freewill of the chess players because they are still making their moves by themselves but at any time the Chess Master looks at any game, he can accurately tell how it will end.
If the chess master chooses, he can tell someone to change a particular move and thereby bring the game to an alternate outcome through a series of succeeding moves following.

This changes nothing.
For instance, does the master know ahead of time he's going to tell the player to change his move?
Does the master know precisely which moves are going to be taken by the players as well?

Evil Brain: You should definitely check that up 'cos you're wrong. The sickle cell trait is a point mutation. That means a single "letter" of DNA got flipped (out of billions) causing a single amino-acid to be changed, which then changed the way the Hemoglobin molecule folds, causing it to malfunction. Because it's just one single mutation, It has probably arisen countless times over the millennia. The reason it's not common is because being AS carries many disadvantages (some kidney problems, a small risk of sickle cell crises and the risk of mating with another AS person) thus, natural selection has kept its prevalence low, except where malaria changes the balance of things.

Woot, just a single mutation? Interesting how that alone can make drastic changes. Like a minor version of the butterfly effect. The math is interesting as well. I suppose whoever I was quoting meant it became prevalent in a population 4x. Then again, iirc it was a famous, or rather infamous, 'biologist' in these here parts (fire and brimstone I now expect). Thanks for clearing that up.


EDIT: yup, I reread their posts, what happened was the paper they sourced studied 4 populations. Some fairly ridiculous claims seemed to have distracted me, my bad. Thanks again

Logicboy03: I saw it on fox news. Huckabee sha tried to take back his words


Here is the full story;

Huckabee makes the foolish comment
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/huckabee-to-fox-should-we-be-surprised-about-school-carnage-when-weve-removed-god-from-schools/

After backlash, he tries to remix what he said
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/12/15/huckabee-tries-to-walk-back-comments-on-god-and/191868



This shows that some christians are very shallow, no matter the education. Imagine a governor saying that the reason that we see shgooting in schools is that they have removed "God" from schools.


1) That would be debunked by the fact that Japan is mostly godless, yet they are the second most peaceful country in the world. Why arent their schools being shot up?

2) "God" is not removed from schools. Mandated or compulsory religion is removed. You can learn christian studies but prayers must not be compulsory for students; the students can privately worship.

Lol at huckabee, what a 4king eediot. I wonder where god was when those priests were doing their thing with all those choir boys. They mean he's not in churches?

Logicboy03: Empty barrels love to claim things that they havent done.

And shift posts and redefine his parameters. Or claim there are no 'true' ghey females when it fits his agenda. One of the dumbest things I've come across on NL, and that's quite the achievement of course. Ignore posts. Mask inanity in rhetoric (or whatever shouting f.ucktard is). Chest thumping like a gorrilla, he might as well pick up their ghey as well if he's insistent on doing only natural things, and do some p.enis fencing like bononos while he's at it. And r.ape his mother. And kill babies. And not use the internet or watch tv, etc. Basically disregard science. Or insist his gf digests him after they have s.ex. Etc etc etc

Of course, not state his case clearly as well.

ADD riddled and shallow...meh

turnstoner: Yeah, and I guess most of the Americans who voted against Obama in the last elections have this Jaundiced world view!

Which one? The one in the op or the one of the guy who would $hit on himself?

As for the op, I never said most americans anyways, I said a "a large part of american society". That post has over 200k likes for instance, while she has just 400 subscribers.

obadiah777: THEY ARE CRAZY. NO AMOUNT OF PRAYER WILL HELP AMERICA. THE JUSTICE HAS BEEN SET. BABYLON WILL BE DESTROYED. ALL OF A SUDDEN THESE IDIOTS DEVELOP A CONSCIENCE WHEN THE SHOE IS ON THE OTHER FEET. FORK EM ALL AND LET BABYLON BURN FOR IT HAS GOTTEN THE WHOLE WORLD DRUNK OF THE WINE OF ITS FORNICATION AND IT DID SMITE THE NATIONS IN ANGER AND ITS PRIDE REACHETH UP TO THE HEAVENS AND ITS SINS REACHETH UP TO THE HEAVENS. BURN BABYLON BURNNNNNNNNNNNN *PHEW* RANT OVER

Yeah, you don't errr, shall we say disappoint. But what is this? You believe in predestination?

E_monkey: So atheists think that evolution has no direction?

I used to think that evolution had a direction in the sense that it takes the path that enables the species to survive. Evolution tends to favor adaptations that facilitates an organism's survival and longevity.
Can this feature of evolution not be regarded as the direction evolution takes?

What @evil said.

Iirc sickle cell has mutated at least 4x (but I'll have to check up on that). Sabre toothed tigers evolved around 4x as well, each time dying out when suitable prey became rare or extinct (I'll have to check that as well).

Anyways, contrast natural to artificial selection, where people with consciousness, intelligence and the resources with the goal of say breeding hairless cats will succeed in 10's of years tops. Natural selection is not conscious or aware of anything, it has no goals, no purpose, no will etc. Well, it's inanimate so that's obvious. It's just what happens when a set of conditions are met, like say the rain, or stars forming, etc.

E_monkey: lol

I am interested in this part of your post wiegraf;


How true is it?

That it's dogma? 0.0000...1%.

As for the validity of the statement itself, from what I can tell, 99.99..%. But why do you ask?
You could look up the link yourself and see what other atheist thought of those 'dogma', for the most part I agree with them.

ucheheart: you see what your low self esteem is causing you, all you keep pouring out of your filthy mouth is curse, curse and curse. i wonder what your family will be like if you happen to be the head and from your statement above i can see that you are a real homo begging for recognition on nairaland. so if it pains your heart filthy and homoadulterous heart that i am not your fan and never will be, go and hug transformer. mr city man i hail you but i rather remain a village man than to associate with homos like you in the city cos you life stinks. soon you will also support incest and say it is normal. why am i even wasting my time talking to nitwit and ignoramus like you. you don't worth my time on nairaland. go and be intimate with your sibling incestuous and adulterous homo

Nice to see you practicing your "jokes". You'll need to some more though, as this aren't too funny. Even your less cultured village people might be unimpressed and deny you your ambitions of becoming their premier source of eediocy. Just in case, I hope you've not lost your farming skills, yes?

Kudos

Here are 10 scientific dogma as well

www.nairaland.com/1012893/10-dogmata-mordern-science

mkmyers45: In The Science Delusion, biochemist Rupert Sheldrake lays out what he calls the 'dogma of science'. I thought it might be fun to post them and see what you all think of them!

1. Everything is essentially mechanical. Dogs, for example, are complex mechanisms, rather than living organisms with goals of their own. Even people are machines, “lumbering robots”, in Richard Dawkins’s vivid phrase, with brains that are like genetically programmed computers.

2. All matter is unconscious. It has no inner life or subjectivity or point of view. Even human consciousness is an illusion produced by the material activity of brains.

3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same (with the exception of the Big Bang, when all the matter and energy of the Universe suddenly appeared).

4. The laws of nature are fixed. They are the same today as they were at the beginning, and they will stay the same forever.

5. Nature is purposeless, and evolution has no goal or direction.

6. All biological inheritance is material, carried in the genetic material, DNA, and in other material structures.

7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains. When you look at a tree, the image of the tree you are seeing is not ‘out there’, where it seems to be, but inside your brain.

8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.

9. Unexplained phenomena like telepathy are illusory.

10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

hmm.. I suppose not all are sheeple
Considering 9ja (I'm looking at you nl), I can relate to this guy's post, so, so very much so...

Edit: come to think about it I made a very similar post just yesterday

www.nairaland.com/1131108/female-fish-attracted-gay-males/5#13403612

This pic gotten courtesy of reddit, an accurate representation of a large part of american society? God really needs to be reintroduced into their schools


Don't look at me. I'm not trying to start a flame war. Who would do something so disgusting?

Edit: Theists, feel free to post any facebook screens you may like