Wiegraf's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Wiegraf's Profile › Wiegraf's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 (of 162 pages)
 Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 1:25am On Sep 21, 2012 |
Ishilove: Why?? Dude, you called your self a jerk!!I'm still confused. By many standards, I am a jerk... |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 1:13am On Sep 21, 2012 |
Ishilove: What a curious way to describe oneself. . .Why? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sam Harris On The Protests by wiegraf(op): 1:05am On Sep 21, 2012 |
^^^^ Interesting, and troubling... Related rant, people have been killed, totally unrelated to video in question (but that's besides the point, even if they were involved in making the video that in no way justifies their being killed), yet when I look at bbm and facebook profiles I see messages similar to "I support the protesting of the defamation of our $praise prophet muhammed (gcon,fcc, put whatever title here)". So people being killed because someone elsewhere exercised his freedom of speech and broke no laws is a petty concern when compared to criticizing someone who died 1400 years ago (and said person did indeed have questionable morals by today's standards in most cultures, in other words, the criticism might be even fair, but that's beside the point as well). Note most of these people would definitely qualify as moderate muslims. They are not in anyway apologizing, nor do they seem to be genuinely concerned about the actions of the zealots protesting. By putting up these silly status updates they are actually supporting the crazies, without batting an eyelid. And this is what the Obama admin does... http://news.yahoo.com/pakistan-anti-film-ads-feature-obama-clinton-143350312.html |
| Christianity Etc › Re: The Pink Unicorn Argument Against Religion by wiegraf: 8:32pm On Sep 20, 2012 |
I like it. Being critical does not hinder being open-minded, at all, contrary to some peoples beliefs. Garbage in, garbage out, etc.. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sam Harris On The Protests by wiegraf(op): 8:12pm On Sep 20, 2012 |
Lord_Reed: @wiegrafBump cause I'm kind of bored (maybe I should actually work). I wish it was that simple, question is, are we dealing with a minority of extremists? Other question is, as the article highlights, there's the issue of 72 virgins, etc. These people genuinely believe they will get some sort of reward for blowing up a few infidels and apostates, we are dealing with real crazy here. It is sort of like dealing with one of those kool aid cults, except this one has over a billion followers. This sort of crazy cannot be stopped from the sheep (it would require a whole lot of education, among other things, to do so), the leaders who they look up to need to step up. And for the most part they don't seem troubled, if anything I'd say they tacitly approve. They could force the hand of the west, not likely, but it's possible. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 10:26am On Sep 20, 2012 |
obadiah777: now i am a jihadist for christ ?Excellent logic. I can see you doing it. YOU'D FLY/CRASH IN ALL CAPS ALL AS WELL . A feat only a chosen few are capable of  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sam Harris On The Protests by wiegraf(op): 8:07am On Sep 20, 2012 |
Lord_Reed: As the article clearly points out it is the policies of the west in the middle east that has brought it into opproborium with the inhabitants.Let us examine this if you will. The article states this yes, but it doesn't endorse it as being the most important, or the only reason for the current furore. He is of the opinion that (and so am I actually) Islam's tenets encourage and perpetuate violence, hate, intolerance, discrimination, persecution, human rights abuses etc etc. This despite technology's advances. It is a lot easier to provoke muslims than it is to provoke members of the other major religions, and this is not by chance. Islam might be in a 'phase', just like the xtian world wasn't particularly charitable during the dark ages, but this too is difficult to support imo. Xtianity didn't have constant contact with other more evolved cultures to show it more humane, open and productive ways to go about doing things. The world was also a lot more ignorant with regards to how nature operates as well. Other major religions/cultures have been through similar, or worse, travails then the Islamic worlds current ones with the west, and they weren't this violent (maybe even some from antiquity, but I'll have to look that up). They aren't the only ones that have been oppressed, their reaction is overkill. Lord_Reed: The west has to balance their involvement in the internal dynamics of middle eastern countries with their fiduciary and mineral interest.Just want to note that for many its citizens, financial benefit wasn't the reason they supported their many misadventures in that region. Security (which includes finance yes, but not solely) and, importantly as far as religion is concerned, moral reasons were primary motivators. Of course, their governments motivations though... Lord_Reed: While this poses a problem I think it is achievable and will significantly reduce the chance of the west coming into the crosshairs.Except I think the cat has threatened to the point where threats aren't effective anymore. It will have to pull out those claws else chances are it will lose all respect. A line has to be drawn, at the very least respect should be reciprocal. When you are in a muslim country, you are expected to obey their laws(well you could try to disobey, it will be your stoning), and for the most part said laws are respected by foreigners. Now one of these foreigners does something that breaks absolutely no law in his own land (in fact is somewhat encouraged, being as it is considered a basic human right), then they demand his revered basic rights be violated and also kill people that have absolutely nothing to do with him. Politics or no that's just wrong. Obama shouldn't be apologizing or placating the Islamic world. The making of that video was in no way a crime of any sort in the west, and the Islamic world needs to accept that. Lovely post btw. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 4:19am On Sep 20, 2012 |
Come to think about, the ability to slap a few women and then claim they are "winchies" may be enough to sell me the idea... EDIT: there's this wee rumour that Hubbard started scientology because of a bet.. Ha! wiki actually covers it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_controversies#L._Ron_Hubbard_and_starting_a_religion_for_money |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 4:14am On Sep 20, 2012 |
CrazyMan: Are you doubting me?I'd gladly start one with you, sadly not for the same reasons as you... I'm thinking of what sort of jet I would eventually buy? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 4:06am On Sep 20, 2012 |
CrazyMan: Oh! I'm sure they would come...believe me, they would surely come.  |
| Islam › Re: Why Should I Believe The Bible Or Quran (scientific Prophecy Only) by wiegraf: 3:35am On Sep 20, 2012 |
I know, I've always thought people thinking batman stood a chance against superman as being, forgive me, stoopid. How in the world do you expect him to defeat almost invulnerable superman? Ok, I concede that maybe if batman prepared he might stand a chance. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Logicboy Meets Anony (epic) by wiegraf: 3:13am On Sep 20, 2012 |
musKeeto: People I'd like to meetHonored bro! I'm a d**k though, most of the time. If I met me I'd probably not like me. I certainly don't sense anything malicious in anony, ihe. Despite what I might say, they probably won't fly planes into buildings if some pastor demanded it...maybe... BUZUGEE WOULD But yeah, most regulars here are going to be decent, thoughtful, nice people. The debating is for sport most of the time, it's not personal. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Sam Harris On The Protests by wiegraf(op): 12:51am On Sep 20, 2012 |
cyrexx: But seriously, whats the solution to these bloody brainwashed murderous muslims who seeks to limit freedom of speech and art expression?War? Seriously, it's getting ridiculous. We should not have to go back in time 1400 years just to accommodate them. The reaction from Obama et al, while reasonable, I find really, really pathetic. Why in the world are they (seemingly) contrite? These 2 paragraphs I think are rather juicy, and deserve some examination "At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses. Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail little more exertion or risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful." Is Islam really more dangerous than most other religions? I have to say personally, I think so. Edit: Really though, faux-war-mongering aside: cyrexx: But seriously, whats the solution to these bloody brainwashed murderous muslims who seeks to limit freedom of speech and art expression?Anyone with insights on what our options are, or what is being done? |
| Christianity Etc › Sam Harris On The Protests by wiegraf(op): 10:47pm On Sep 19, 2012 |
This would be in the atheist section if there were one. Maybe an atheist should threaten Seun so we could get our own nice shiny section. Anyways, quote bible or koran? Go away. "The latest wave of Muslim hysteria and violence has now spread to over twenty countries. The walls of our embassies and consulates have been breached, their precincts abandoned to triumphant mobs, and many people have been murdered—all in response to an unwatchable Internet video titled “Innocence of Muslims.” Whether over a film, a cartoon, a novel, a beauty pageant, or an inauspiciously named teddy bear, the coming eruption of pious rage is now as predictable as the dawn. This is already an old and boring story about old, boring, and deadly ideas. And I fear it will be with us for the rest of our lives. Our panic and moral confusion were at first sublimated in attacks upon the hapless Governor Romney. I am no fan of Romney’s, and I would find the prospect of his presidency risible if it were not so depressing, but he did accurately detect the first bleats of fear in the Obama administration’s reaction to this crisis. Romney got the timing of events wrong—confusing, as many did, a statement made by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo for an official government response to the murder of Americans in Libya. But the truth is that the White House struck the same note of apology, disavowing the offending speech while claiming to protect free speech in principle. It may seem a small detail, given the heat of the moment—but so is a quivering lip. Our government followed the path of appeasement further by attempting to silence the irrepressible crackpot Pastor Terry Jones, who had left off burning copies of the Qur’an just long enough to promote the film. The administration also requested that Google remove “Innocence of Muslims” from its servers. These maneuvers attest to one of two psychological and diplomatic realities: Either our government is unwilling to address the problem at hand, or the problem is so vast and terrifying that we have decided to placate the barbarians at the gate. The contagion of moral cowardice followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork. Consider what is actually happening: Some percentage of the world’s Muslims—Five percent? Fifteen? Fifty? It’s not yet clear—is demanding that all non-Muslims conform to the strictures of Islamic law. And where they do not immediately resort to violence in their protests, they threaten it. Carrying a sign that reads “Behead Those Who Insult the Prophet” may still count as an example of peaceful protest, but it is also an assurance that infidel blood would be shed if the slowpoke holding the placard only had more power. This grotesque promise is, of course, fulfilled in nearly every Muslim society. To make a film like “Innocence of Muslims” anywhere in the Middle East would be as sure a method of suicide as the laws of physics allow. What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it. At moments like this, we inevitably hear—from people who don’t know what it’s like to believe in paradise—that religion is just a way of channeling popular unrest. The true source of the problem can be found in the history of western aggression in the region. It is our policies, rather than our freedoms, that they hate. I believe that the future of liberalism—and much else—depends on our overcoming this ruinous self-deception. Religion only works as a pretext for political violence because many millions of people actually believe what they say they believe: that imaginary crimes like blasphemy and apostasy are killing offenses. Most secular liberals think that all religions are the same, and they consider any suggestion to the contrary a sign of bigotry. Somehow, this article of faith survives daily disconfirmation. Our language is largely to blame for this. As I have pointed out on many occasions, “religion” is a term like “sports”: Some sports are peaceful but spectacularly dangerous (“free solo” rock climbing, street luge); some are safer but synonymous with violence (boxing, mixed martial arts); and some entail little more exertion or risk of serious injury than standing in the shower (bowling, badminton). To speak of “sports” as a generic activity makes it impossible to discuss what athletes actually do, or the physical attributes required to do it. What do all sports have in common, apart from breathing? Not much. The term “religion” is scarcely more useful. Consider Mormonism: Many of my fellow liberals would consider it morally indecent to count Romney’s faith against him. In their view, Mormonism must be just like every other religion. The truth, however, is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has more than its fair share of quirks. For instance, its doctrine was explicitly racist until 1978, at which point God apparently changed his mind about black people (a few years after Archie Bunker did) and recommended that they be granted the full range of sacraments and religious responsibilities. By this time, Romney had been an adult and an exceptionally energetic member of his church for more than a decade. Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian. A firmer embrace of the preposterous is required—and the fact that Romney can manage it says something about him, just as it would if he were a Scientologist proposing to park his E-meter in the Oval Office. The spectrum between rational belief and self-serving delusion has some obvious increments: It is one thing to believe that Jesus existed and was probably a remarkable human being. It is another to accept, as most Christians do, that he was physically resurrected and will return to earth to judge the living and the dead. It is yet another leap of faith too far to imagine, as all good Mormons must, that he will work his cosmic magic from the hallowed ground of Jackson County, Missouri. That final, provincial detail matters. It makes Mormonism objectively less plausible than run-of-the-mill Christianity—as does the related claim that Jesus visited the “Nephites” in America at some point after his resurrection. The moment one adds seer stones, sacred underpants, the planet Kolob, and a secret handshake required to win admittance into the highest heaven, Mormonism stands revealed for what it is: the religious equivalent of rhythmic gymnastics. The point, however, is that I can say all these things about Mormonism, and disparage Joseph Smith to my heart’s content, without fearing that I will be murdered for it. Secular liberals ignore this distinction at every opportunity and to everyone’s peril. Take a moment to reflect upon the existence of the musical The Book of Mormon. Now imagine the security precautions that would be required to stage a similar production about Islam. The project is unimaginable—not only in Beirut, Baghdad, or Jerusalem, but in New York City. The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance. And Governor Romney, though he is wrong about almost everything under the sun (including, very likely, the sun), is surely right to believe that it is time our government delivered this message without blinking." http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/on-the-freedom-to-offend-an-imaginary-god Thoughts? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Newly Discovered Gospel Proofs Suggests j3sus Had A Wife. by wiegraf: 10:25pm On Sep 19, 2012 |
I thought the scientific method was the one that was supposed to be dogmatic? |
| TV/Movies › Re: The Most Violent Anime You've Ever Watched? by wiegraf: 6:13am On Sep 19, 2012 |
Honorable mention of mnenosyne, 3*3 eyes |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Pls I Need Ur Help by wiegraf: 8:56pm On Sep 18, 2012*. Modified: 1:54am On Sep 19, 2012 |
Emm, genius, aka @hye, you still haven't told me what evolution has to do with relativity. Also, does the tone of my post imply I've read only the wiki article? (Actually, If I had read that wiki article I would have added details like the fact that Einstein praised him highly eventually, and the priest himself was against mixing science and religion despite being devout. He was against the pope using his model to support creationism for instance. The article is rather good actually.) Does the gist of your posts indicate in anyway that you know what you are talking about? I've come across propaganda written by islamic 'scholars' before. They are truly, truly sad thing to behold. It would take a first rate poet to accurately describe just how terrible they are. If only I could find the writer of whatever nonsense you've been reading, I'd show him your posts, the embarrassment might be enough to make him reconsider writing any more such 'papers'. Except I'm pretty sure he's as deluded and confused as you are. Or being that it's propaganda, he might actually be pretty delighted with the results of his not-so-hard work. If you are actually misrepresenting his ideas, then well... I'll be optimistic and conclude he's the confused or disingenuous one, not you. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Pls I Need Ur Help by wiegraf: 6:36pm On Sep 18, 2012*. Modified: 1:55am On Sep 19, 2012 |
Hye-Bits:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Before you go around making claims couldn't you at least verify them? Or at least make it clear that you are a novice to the topic, or something. From your write ups we have very little to discuss, you have no grasp of the topics, at all. The posts are for the most part complete nonsense. I'm no expert but even I can tell you're completely lost. At least, for the sake of clarity, explain clearly what evolution has to do relativity? Then you accuse me of making folktales  |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Pls I Need Ur Help by wiegraf: 4:33pm On Sep 18, 2012 |
Martian: Read this thread. You will go from ranting to being speechless and a little surprised and confused at the ignorance being diplayed by these people that are supposedly educated..........or at least have some formal education.Oh but I have, sort off. I follow a bit, cringe, then un-follow. Then out of some sort of perverse desire I follow again, despair at our situation, then un-follow. @Mkmyers sure has patience. There's little he, or about 99.9 percent of us could do about the situation there imo. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Pls I Need Ur Help by wiegraf: 3:28pm On Sep 18, 2012 |
Hye-Bits:Einstein didn't really discover that, but wanted a static universe for philosophical reasons, yes, so he added the constant. Some catholic priest showed him the universe should have a beginning, and the fact that a man in a robe was pointing this out made him suspicious, for very good reason. Science and religion should never mix, period. But the priest was right, and the astrologer hubble showed einstein the universe was indeed expanding. So guess what Einstein did, he admitted he had been wrong, maybe even unscientific in ignoring the priest's claims (maybe unfair to the priest even), and fully accepted the priest's assertions, even calling the constant the 'biggest blunder of my life'. This is a demonstration of the scientific method at work. When you are proven wrong, you concede, alter or discard the theory, and then continue using it for the benefit of all. Regardless of creed, race, or religion. Note though, the cosmological constant was in fact added back into the equations for general relativity, but how it works is still a mystery. It is only known that it is related to the for now exotic dark energy/matter in the universe, which account for over 90 percent of the universe's mass. Also, even without the priests involvement, it's fairly obvious this universe has a starting point, or at least resets every once in a while, for other reasons. For instance, considering entropy is irreversible, if this universe had existed forever then we wouldn't be here now, in fact there'd be nothing but chaos more or else. Rant: the rest of this post not so relevant to the cosmological constant Some eediots actually consider the scientific method dogmatic. Others demand that their texts written in antiquity (like say 1400 years ago by some probably schizophrenic dude in a cave) are divinely inspired, absolute truths, so they cannot be changed. Said texts are shown to be wrong and widely inaccurate all the time, they also have absolutely no evidence to back up their claims of divinity or whatever, yet these people demand the rest of us take them seriously. Luckily we have rights, scientists can tell these eediots to stfu and stay out of their way while they continue to build the nice things said eediots will use to enrichen their lives. Unless, of course, one of them actually brings up good scientific evidence to back up his claim, like your priest. What in the world does relativity have to do with evolution, or 'darwinism'? I'm not even sure what to make of your posts, troll or no? What in the world are you on about? There is more, but I'm sort of busy atm, I'll leave it here, for now. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheists Pls I Need Ur Help by wiegraf: 12:12pm On Sep 18, 2012 |
@hye Could you please enlighten us as to how the universe was created? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: An Unsent Email by wiegraf: 6:03pm On Sep 17, 2012 |
My attention span is far too low to read that, but this thread has a warm fuzzy feeling. Even though I don't know why, well done guise! However, it also makes it perfect for trolling... Maybe I'll be back... 1 Like |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Succinctly Anony by wiegraf: 4:53pm On Sep 17, 2012*. Modified: 11:22pm On Sep 17, 2012 |
Rested, but by rights I should be working. I'm glad you realize your rebuttal is nonsense, at least there's a little honesty left in you. Thank $deity, I might actually become a believer! Mr_Anony: Lol, while you're at it, Your "omnipotent friend" may as well make you whyuihoioio90££> and make you meet ££$%^ojohu8 so that 18 of you can do @rtytr(HFDFDG+ and wejhaujuiouiohUIpo......Yes, I think he should plant that desire in my head. This is simple, this is a silly example because in no place is up clearly down or any other illogical nonsense. A better example would be something simpler, like could god divide by zero? Let me guess your ans, it will be no (and it should be). If an omnipotent can't then problems, like your all-good issue, or the fact that he could never verify if he really were omniscient, or the fact that if he builds an infinitely heavy stone which he couldn't lift his omnipotency is clearly called into question (I wonder how he deals with black holes), arise. We can then start to question other little things, like could he predict the weather. You think silly? Ha ha ha, no. It's virtually impossible to accurately predict the weather, even if you get computers that have reached quantum limits. Too much data is involved, too many different possible outcomes as well. A slight change, such as rounding decimals alone, will create a vastly different scenario, and you will have to make these changes all the time (see chaos theory, butterfly effect). And this is for deterministic models, let's not even bother with probabilistic ones, like quantum mechanics, which influences every single particle in the universe.. Every single one. So how omnipotent/omniscient is your logic abiding god? Or it does not abide to logic when it suits our fairy tale writers? You'll say: this has nothing to do with the problem of evil.... I've addressed that... Mr_Anony: How heavy? It is still undefinedStop it. Create your point, state it then I can show you how it only works in anonyverse (random: that might be impossible though. Just as we can't tell how other universes work, or if they even exist, it would require a lot to make you understand there are universes other than anonyverse) Mr_Anony: Once you ask the question why would He care less? you arrive at purpose for allowingSo? I'm sober atm, I can't see where you're going with this. Mr_Anony: What part of all-good do you not understand?The part were there's a logical paradox. God is only good, is that what you are saying? He has no evil in him, yes? Yet there's evil a plenty in this universe, yes? This your omnipotent being sef. Oh, let me guess: there is no evil in the universe? Mr_Anony: lol, not true, omnibenevolent has been shown to fail the problem of evil. all-loving has not been shown to do so. You are merely writing it of based on a bias that there is no purpose to suffering. But then you can't rightfully say that without being omniscient yourself.This is just...wharrgarble Bring up a reason other than 'mysterious ways', then you might have a case. I'm on a phone atm, else I'd quote the nice post where you state there are less evil ways to go about achieving good goals. Whowouldathunk mere mortals could figure that out! Mr_Anony: another emotional argumentLike above, time now to LALALALA... Surplus suffering = evil (even though I'd prefer any suffering personally)... I thought we settled on that? What should I eat, btw? There's cooka soup and tuwo |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Succinctly Anony by wiegraf: 5:40am On Sep 17, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Lol, while you're at it, Your "omnipotent friend" may as well make you whyuihoioio90££> and make you meet ££$%^ojohu8 so that 18 of you can do @rtytr(HFDFDG+ and wejhaujuiouiohUIpo......The infamous wharrgarble defense. Well played ser, well played I can only admire your I'll be back, good ser, I'll be back...
|
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 5:22am On Sep 17, 2012*. Modified: 6:49am On Sep 17, 2012 |
pak: My eyes are partly closing as I type.Let me rephrase that a little "And how can atheists be intolerant towards what does not exist" Again "And why should atheists prove what does not exist". Especially when they aren't the ones making claims? pak: To the gay issue, one question I've always asked peeps who support gay right is - what's your take about bestiality ? agreed, its a digression but still quite relevant to the issue at hand cos the topic of God cuts across the scientific, the philosophical and morality.It might not be really relevant. And god and .science should never be used in the same sentence (hence the random '.'). Anyways, Let me think about it... lemme see... not much to think about. You kill animals everyday yet suddenly f*****g them is an issue. If the animal finds it pleasurable, I think it'd much rather f**k than become dinner. Animal cruelty though, of any sort, should be discouraged. Also, I think any person, male or female, should be able to marry as many wives/husband of either sex as they wish, so long as they're all consenting adults. What in the world is govts biz (except maybe tax laws)? Heavy problem with enacting this policy though is it could result in slavery of sorts, especially of women. pak: Functional programming ? Never done that before, the closest I got was python !This is just disgusting. Java and PHP are successful too, and you've already admitted PHP is pure $hit, so that doesn't prove anything. Popular = good? Seriously? Twilight for instance... Python has plenty functional programming, true. I'd like to build something using only functional concepts someday... sigh pak: Now Kay answered that so brilliantly, Am not sure I can do better. So let me just copy and pasteWell, that's actually my point. So, modifying kay's post from "God Himself can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for God, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore God is self existent. In other words, God has always been here." to "Nature can have no origin, because to conceive an origin for Nature, we would fall into a pit of absurdity. Therefore Nature is self existent. In other words, Nature has always been here." Edit: I wasn't paying attention, and should be asleep as well. For your other concern, because we don't understand something, yet, does not mean it will remain a mystery forever. Applying occams razor to what we know today unambigiously points to no god. Even logical problems like the problem of evil voids many gods. ZzzzZzz, I'll elaborate later Sleep well bro |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Succinctly Anony by wiegraf: 4:38am On Sep 17, 2012 |
Mr_Anony: Calling your something folly is does not make it folly.So you do understand that wishing stuff is so does not make it so... Mr_Anony: One more thing: It is inconsequential that Martian agreed with me or not. Usually I and Martian do not agree but he at least is intelligent enough to follow his arguments to their logical outcomes.And being that he's omnipotent, I'd expect him to. Create xcafeytt$jj@i836, plant it in my mind that xcafeytt$jj@i836 has always existed, then make it drink tea. What sort of omnipotent couldn't do that? This is a terrible example. Also note yourself focusing on your definition of omnipotent (and you've done so many times already). I bring this up, even though you know I've already (grudgingly) accepted your definitions, and you start crying foul. The nature of your omnixx.x is part of the problem. Mr_Anony: It is a nonsense question as long as you can't define exactly what xcafeytt$jj@i836 is. Same as your questionI think it would have to be heavy. Mr_Anony: Frankly I'm disappointed that this is what passes for logic in your book.What in the world.. I'm supposed to care? Mr_Anony: Now if we accept that God is omnipotent and omniscient creator, then nothing can possibly happen in God's universe without God allowing it.Not really, he simply could care less Mr_Anony: Also if God is omniscient, it follow that whatever he allows, there is a reason for allowing it.No it doesn't Mr_Anony: If God is also Good, then the reason for allowing it cannot possibly be evil.True, if he is only good... Mr_Anony: Remember your initial argument was if God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent, how do you explain suffering?It doesn't. The same way we can dismiss omnibenovelent because he clearly isn't flying around saving kittens, we can dismiss a good purpose because there clearly isn't one. Think something up, rather than the 'mysterious ways' troll, then you might be able to wriggle this in. Mr_Anony: Your complaint about the amount of suffering in the world is of no consequence as long as there is a purpose or it.You can say that with a straight face? You equate an instant painless death to say being boiled alive? Also, if the complaint was about the suffering in the world, not the degree, it would be of no consequence as long as there is a GOOD purpose for it (and that depends on the type of omnipotent). I really should sleep. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Succinctly Anony by wiegraf: 3:49am On Sep 17, 2012 |
Answer me @anony, you said you had time to play... You accept your god isn't omnibenovelent (if you refer to the xtian god though, others would say that claim is wrong, but meh), nice, but it doesn't still completely clear you. Having accepted two omnixxx (barely) and defining your "all-good" as having a purpose that has a long term good benefit, do you accept that given the over abundance of evil in the universe that cannot be justified as good or beneficial to the overall well being of life this all-goodness is seriously called into question? Do something about @ihe btw, why does he run off? Religion thrashing kind of stops being fun if you're only one around to produce semi-decent arguments... edit: never mind, I've seen that 'response' |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 3:18am On Sep 17, 2012 |
pak: Nope, it was never meant to be. It was partly jocular with a lace of truth beneath. I simply do not believe that a 'true atheist' exist, apart from people who do not have the mental capacity to comprehend such issues. A group you clearly don't fall into. At least you can type on a keyboard.( though I don't know if you are doing that from under a bridge anywayYou couldn't just let it go... See the last lines... pak: I don't know what you are driving at here bro. The major differentiating factor between atheism and every other 'ism' is his [b]belief[/b]in the 'non existence of God' (if I should use that language) - that's why I've been calling on your fellow discussant Kay to help me out if am missing somethingI take issue with the bold. There's no belief involved here. But take it up with @kay, his succinct, lucid style is way better than mine. pak: That was due to All4Naija response when he hinted that it was the theist's call to make the proofs (and I still think its not out of place in this discussionRegardless, you brought up burden of proof then tried to make it seem like I was off topic. pak: . . .and please, please stop writing those PHP codes. It affects your thinking and makes you believe in things like atheism and the fact that you do not need to declare a variable before they are brought into existencePersonally, I think PHP is a terrible cancer, but then javascript. Besides, once I get my hands dirty with pure functional programming I might be able to achieve great things without variables altogether (well not really) talk less of initiating them. Anyways, you never addressed my questions. So, again: What made god? pak: N.B.I speak of gay rights, but you can extend it to any laws that discriminate on religious grounds. You genuinely think we are crazy, you just don't want to admit it because you are being called out. Religion is rather insidious, you may be a productive, good dude but you have an irrational and maybe subconscious intolerance towards atheists, probably because it's been implanted in you by one of these 'good' religions... I'm joking with the indignation, maybe. I'll let you off the hook. |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 1:31am On Sep 17, 2012 |
pak: The only thing surmise is that there is really no true Atheist (maybe save the mad men under the bridge).Are you implying I'm a mad under the bridge hypocrite? Do you have any evidence to back this up? Is that meant to be derogatory? pak: I don't know what to make of this statement, sounds derogatory to me. I think there was no need to include that, you should have just gone ahead to make your point.It was meant to be derogatory, but you took it well so I'll give you points for that. This is what is in the op: "Let's discuss atheism vs deism. Merits and logic of both sides . If some theists would like to chip in their own two cents, they are free, however buzugee, rastamouse and snthesis(for a different reason than the other two) can watch from the sidelines. If Davidylan wants to join in, he'd better be civil. Okay 3,2,1, let the games begin!!!" pak: The bone of contention on this thread is the issue of the 'existence of God'I think this thread is about comparing the logic of both atheism, deism. 'existence of God' is related, but not the main topic. You took it to pak: You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways.Certainly not related to the topic, maybe indirectly though. Anyway, you have brought the "burden of proof" to the fore. I respond with a post about the burden of proof, complete with examples to show why the claimant is the one who has back up his assertions, then you do this. pak: Sincerely bro, Its my turn to ask 'What's your point ?'There is more, but I'll leave it here, for now... And if you're a programmer need you ask about the $? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Is Science More Accurate Than The Bible? by wiegraf: 12:38am On Sep 17, 2012 |
Kay 17: Philosophy is Mother of PhysicsThis is a worthy debate, perhaps in another form. Should we replace concepts like 'the soul' with hard science? In this case say neuroscience, etc. Will there always be a place for philosophy? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 12:16am On Sep 17, 2012 |
pak: I made two previous post on the thread (page 2) and I agree the third post will only make sense if seen as a continuation of the other ones. You can check themYou may misunderstand. I read them, but can't see any good points there. From the way you write I'm taking you assume yourself an intelligent person. Don't know you, but I'm going to go with this assumption. To save time, I will make another as well. pak: Its easier to believe in David Blaine's magic than to believe everything we see just came out of nothing (haba !)Is god complex? I assume you think so. What made god? pak: You see a lot of atheist argue that burden of proof lies not on the atheist to disprove the existence of God, but on the theist to provide a rationale for theism but I totally disagree, it cuts both ways. The only group that can shift that responsibility is the agnostics.The burden of proof lies with the one who makes the claim. Simple. We atheists sit in our houses minding our business then some theist comes in and tells us $deity says that we, or our friends and family, cannot get married to the person we love. Why? Because $deity. Or they kill diplomats because a film violates rules laid out in their book of fairy tales (yes, really, years from now our descendants will wonder what in the universe possessed us) written 1400 years, on the authority of said $deity. Note how these 'crimes' do not hurt said theists in anyway. It is now the burden of the theist to prove sky (well now he hides beyond the big b.ang) tyrant exists. They are the ones making the claim, and using these completely unfounded, no evidence whatsoever, claims to discriminate, persecute, kill etc. If they don't justify their claims that would be a blatant disregard for human rights, no? |
| Christianity Etc › Re: Atheism Vs Deism (vs Theism) by wiegraf: 11:26pm On Sep 16, 2012 |
pak: And for all those Atheist who see the discovery of the Higgs Boson - the much sensationalised "God Particle" as some sort of vindication, a pat in the back. I'll only say 'puleeazzzze'What's your point? |
and mkmyers.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 (of 162 pages)