₦airaland Forum

okeyxyz: there is absolutely no such thing as freewill or chance or whatever you may call it. everything in nature is determined by natural laws, no matter what level, be it macro, micro, quark, etc. freewill or chance implies that an event occurs from nothing, that energy and matter can suddenly "become", without cause. It just doesn't make sense. You speak about the availability of scientific methods by which predictions can be made and therefore without such method, then chance comes into the equation. That is flawed logic, determinism does not depend on the means to observe, measure and predict, rather it depends on the matter itself. Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause. Thus determined. it dosen't matter that you have not YET found a way to observe it.

Basically this "Every matter has a nature, state, structure and cause." is only part of the picture. You cannot tell exactly where a particle will be at an exact period of time without altering it's direction (or something like that), among other properties, unpredictably. Even without altering its state (by observing it) you can never tell exactly where it is. So they do have properties, but you cannot determine their exact values.

I speak of the uncertainty principle and waveform collapse, which I assume you are familiar with (for those not, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment). There's Feynman and his sum over histories, Schrodinger's equation etc. I'm not even going to bother with Bell's theorem and other stuff as that is way over my head. The standard model as it stands now, is probabilistic. You can send a particle off on its way and only guess where it will land, you cannot determine exactly where. Unless I'm missing something then kindly point it out.

To calculate where and what every particle in your body is doing (not to mention those that are interacting with your body would be. Edit: to actually truly determine one's actions, it would have to determine the actions of every single particle in the universe, as they all interact you, one way or another) would require some astronomical computing power, no? Even if you managed to simulate that, considering that at its core nature is probabilistic, you can never get completely accurate results.

Note though I say as the item becomes bigger, the odds of something behaving counter-intuitively become smaller, by orders of magnitude I think. So even with natures probabilistic properties I still believe we could make some pretty accurate predictions, or determine someone's actions. Anyways, I never say because it can't be done at the moment that means it's impossible. Why would you assume something so silly?

You should get some professional to verify though if you're in doubt.

AAAnnnd, there is also the issue of virtual particles. Will probably edit later, out of time. I will indicate if I do.

Edited for clarity

Ayomax: we talking abt street here n nt road. mor ova hw often do u see 2branches of zenith bank on dasame road?

I mentioned twice (didn't I?), but I think 3 times. Can't remember details (I'm terrible with those, especially directions) but I'm sure others can point them out. Wuse 2, one of those roads has like 3 branches (finding the right branch on that road for someone with my brilliant sense of direction is usually a nightmare), but you're correct in assuming they aren't close to each other (they aren't that far apart either). Somewhere in garki I believe there 2 branches almost side by side. The third instance I am very unsure of but maybe wuse market region. There are probably other banks that do similar (intercontinental, I'm looking at you, or your grave)

Bottom line, business is good or there is obvious potential for more business and you want to appear solid and prepared, open more branches.

I'm talking about banks before you start pelting me. Off topic? Maybe

I've seen 2 branches of zenith bank on the same road, twice. Now why would they do that?

You have to admit her pic is more dramatic, it has the sun just behind it and stuff...

comnsense: Well, yes nature is purposeless; we may want to attribute a purpose to it to link it with an 'intelligent' designer. Evolution is simply about 'what works, survives' full stop. So indirectly, it has a goal to increase the fitness and therefore survival of an organism. But it doesn't 'set' out with any purpose. There is no goal or direction. 99.9 percent of all the species that ever existed are now extinct so where they survived in one era, they were not well equipped in some other. That demonstrates the lack of any direct purpose or design in nature or evolution. It is simply about the survival of the fittest at each point in time.

It's like asking what's the sun's purpose in shining. It doesn't have one, likely because it's inanimate. Don't know why people have trouble with this (perhaps we could get them to fly there on a faith powered rocket to ask the sun its purpose).

If someone wishes to call the scientific method dogmatic well...

I'm not sure you want to interpret that, but yes, I think like 99.999... of a persons actions could be determined if you had sufficient tools. The tools necessary to accomplish this are at least 100s of years away though. Philosophically determinism is a view many find repulsive, I do as well to an extent, but I think that's reality. Note I've said science does not support this view at the moment but as the model is still not complete if the final 'theory of everything' ends up being deterministic then this view will be justified.

As for religiously which is what I assume interests you, I would say if the judeo-christian personal god existed, or any other similar god/s, then he/it predestined a lot of people to hell forever (as well as untold amounts of suffering here), just for kicks. In fact, I understand there are people who believe in god but are really disgusted at it for reasons such as this. Off topic I know, so I'm off unless you want any more details.

In essence, man, or any other macroscopic material item, is not in control of it's action (my view again, not science's)


Edit: btw I think you misunderstand what my first analogy was trying to point out, which is that by insisting science considers things like 'spirits' which have no observable, testable etc elements (frankly they are imaginary ) you corrupt the process. But if you're looking about it from another perspective I'm cool with that, you just have to make that clear (which you sort of eventually did)

infolekan: You talk about waves like you've done an experiment on it.
More than half of what we know in science is based on faith....there was a time the world was believed to be round & you get atoned for saying otherwise & I tell you that it made more sense logically than round one....but 'scientific discoveries' told us it was round.....& then elliptical. & I won't be surprised if the shape changes in the next decade.
You talk about waves like you understand it.....but then everything you know about it...you read in a book. Were u in school when the atom was the smallest indivisible particle..is it not "divisible" now?
Everything you know.....you read. None of us have repeated Rutherford model of relativity but we could kill for it cos we were taught since we were babies that it existed.
What proof do YOU have that mercury & Mars & Venus do exist? Ur books? Ave u ever personally looked thru a telescope to see one? Our Prof write 2000page book from reading other books so don't preach to me about waves.
Gravity, Atoms, Light & Waves are all concept on which facts rest on.
Cells YOU have not seen.....Electrons YOU have not & you're explaining how a mobile phone works. You try oo

Brilliant. Good sir pls have a 'like'

Lordave: @op take your time o. So you don't have any problem with Allah, Muhammad and their compatriots Zap.ing 72 virgins each in heaven, but you think that Jesus couldn't have ascended into heaven in any form He likes.

Are you threatening him? Even if you weren't, you are saying that muslims do some really weird/bad shit, that does not mean xtians don't do some really weird/bad shit as well. It has no relevance to this topic. Even though I agree this topic is trollish (unless it's for religious people only) that is a silly way to go about pointing it out.

I am familiar with the topic, what I don't understand is how you expect science to consider spirits, souls or whatever you want to call that. At best, that's trollish (in which case, well done, as I'm fairly irritated), worse, you really don't understand what science is about. You want science to consider imaginary stuff in its calculations? Do you think there are millions of little people in your computer furiously switching things and putting on little lights in order to illuminate your monitor? Or maybe when you make a call some invisible man listens then runs at the speed of light to the other end to relay your message? Faith is not a factor where science is concerned, not at all. To come around now and suggest so is so....

Let me put it in perspective a christian may understand (again, not sure how you guys seem completely unable to see other pov). You know how some muslims oppressed by the system in their countries decide 'well, the grass is greener on the other side so I might as well work my way out of this hell hole'. Said muslims then work their way out their country and reach more prosperous lands, a lot of the time at great cost too. Upon arriving though guess what these great examples of human reasoning do? They ask for shariah. A critical part of the system which they escaped, they somehow show up and logically deduce it is better than the system which they struggled to get into. Which they have admitted is superior to the system they escaped from by their going out of their way to join. Sheer arrogance or unadulterated stupid.ity, I don't know. Can you see what I am saying now?

It could get even worse, but it seems you've not crossed that line yet. Some start to somehow credit science's accomplishments to some faith based system...

If you tag this thread as christian only, then you're good, atheists would just take this as religious people just being religious. As it stands now its premises are flagrantly incorrect.

I, personally, am very much in the determinism camp. But with today's science as it stands I understand that my stance is technically incorrect. On the macrosopic scale they can make accurate predictions but when they get down to quarks etc, apparently it's impossible to make accurate predictions. Just like they can use newtonian physics for most common tasks but for larger scales or very high velocities they have to switch einstenian stuff. Just observing the system at the microscopic level alters its state even, and some other really strange stuff happens. So it boils down to probabilities (they still make excellent predictions with that though). But, as there's an element of chance, though ridiculously unlikely to affect most events on a macroscopic level, the universe technically isn't strictly deterministic. Their theories are not complete yet so a deterministic theory may still triumph (and einstein could say 'I told you so' from the grave).

bright007: For anybody that can think and maybe take å stand and saying ŵĥŷ he/she took such stand.

I have no idea as to what you are trying to convey here.

mkmyers45: The building of such an intelligent being is a may...and even at now we don't truly have such energy. Well i see the similarities....

Ok, so you're just bouncing ideas. On the point platteon makes, I've also wondered why theists believe it more logical for something complex to pop out from nowhere rather than simple to complex.

musKeeto: Hopeless. They'd prefer it if the information was divided into chapters and verses...

No really. It's not like I know them, or them me. I don't even like them (nothing personal, just their views etc), but the level of ignorance displayed in this thread actually makes me miss mr anony, deep sight et al. That's truly worrying.

Area_boy: lol.. you guys are cherry-picking your own bible

when we atheist do so you will cry foul!

We have a bible? If you're a pastafarian that qualifies as religious, regardless of the fact that your god is made of spaghetti and meatballs.

abbeywasc: how did u knw? I've never been able to comprehend dumb-ass bullshit.

Sooo, you don't know what sarcasm means? You're a regular genius aren't you? You could try suing your former schools, or whoever dropped you on your head. Else get used to doing manual labor and work on your personality.

This guy was on reddit 2 days ago. Apparently the letter is from 5 years ago. They haven't contacted each other since. The guy is doing pretty fine as well. Imo, blood thicker than water is nonsense. And this guy isn't his dad. His biological father? Yes. Dad? Nope

mollie12: If you have an issue with anything I believe you could use verifiable facts rather than endless questioning to make the air clear.

Two questions = endless questions?
Not to mention you're the one making the claim
Oops, I'll be on my way then

Why should spirituality be considered under scientific conditions? That's not valid at all, but give more context and I might see why you add that. Or is this question for theists only? If so you should indicate
.

The way I understand/stood entropy to work was stuff get's more disorganized as time moves on. It's a major issue to some futurists as far the end of the universe is concerned, as it's irreversible. As time goes on, heat dissipates and stretches out, energy scrambles and scrambles and becomes less organized, till gzillions of years from now matter/energy would be more or else useless. Nothing will be able to convert/use it for any good. In essence, the end of the universe. But it seems you're using it in a different context.

Edit: oops we seem to be saying similar stuff. Should have read it properly. I guess I can't see what building an ultimate intelligence (aka a god, with its shrike, anyone?) has to do with this. Random, even it would fall to entropy in the end, would you look at that

mollie12: *Deep sigh*

The universe cannot just manifest itself - all by itself! That was the first point I addressed on the topic matter - that's still evolution's biggest question.

So what's your beef with the reliability and consistency of the Bible? People everyday are finding in the Bible assurance, stability, explanation for the times they are in, and much more. I'm not sure if you have some areas you need clarification with.

*louder deep sigh*
Science does not have a problem with that, you do. Even if it did, science wouldn't turn to unverifiable claims, else anything goes. If that gives you some existential issues, turn to philosophy, religion, spirituality etc like you've indicated you do. Science is only corncerned with the objective.

You think the historicity of the Bible is accurate? You think the world was created 6,000 years ago?

It was helpful as far as getting into the mind or a religionist is, thank you. Well, not really. Most atheists already know what's there due to indoctrination as kids, but I appreciate the effort. Don't let 'grandiose intellectualism' fault your style also, and try it out sometime.

abbeywasc: yea. It SEEMS so. People lyk u ar never sure of anything

It seems you landed on a di1do recently. Or maybe you have some reading comprehension problems?

abbeywasc: funny hw pple say they dont belief in scientific laws wch ar pretty axiomatic yet they utilize those laws daily: the internet, ur phone, cars, tv etc. And dnt u see d stars, the moon and d stars or u thing dem be photoshop? Wel i guess if u belief Christ went up in a physical body, he must hav achieved escape velocity and travel at warp speed out of our solar system{cos none of d other planets is befittin of heaven}
y do pple mix d world of gross matter wt d spiritual realm anyway?

Erm, your sarcasm detector seems to be faulty

okeyxyz: Faith/religion is a logic, it may not be your cup of tea but it is for somebody else and that's why he practices it. What is logic? Simply put: logic is a principle or manner of thought/action. Religion operates on the principle of morality, It has it's definitions of right/wrong, as long as it's consistent, then it's logical. Period. Just as there are principles of accountancy & finance, Principles of law, democracy, communism, etc. You cannot declare a discipline as illogical just because it's not your choice. You observe religious people and you expect them to behave in a certain way because of their faith, That proves the logic of their faith because you can predict their reactions to certain events, Does that not demonstrate a consistency in their manner of actions? Thus logical!!

You are right! Are you are saying is it's possible for you to find my logic ridiculous (or illogical) if you have set different parameters from mine? When used in the context of science and faith, there is absolutely no room for faith in science. If it's not testable/verifyable, it's not science. Simple. Anything faith based is never science. Science does not draw a conclusion without proof. Perhaps you haven't heard of the scientific method? If you haven't, read up on the basics here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

There is nothing empirically verifiable about 'faith'. If whatever you are attempting to ascertain was verifiable, it wouldn't be tagged faith, it would be promoted to 'observable fact' or something similar. This is simple, basic stuff, I wonder why I have to point this out.

Religion is another word though, it's usage varies. You could say science has a religion: the scientific method.

It looks to me, if this thread is about faith based religion (and I'm careful to ask, in my post), that this is some attempt to merge science and faith. Don't go there. Do not waste the time of the good people of science who are trying to save, enrichen lives using observable facts with fairy tales, wishful thinking etc. Actually, that would be remarkably selfish. Faith has it's uses, but certainly not in scientific method(for instance certain scientists feel better having a faith based religious system in their lives, that's great for them, but that has nothing to do with how they draw their conclusions in their professional work).

What are you asking, can a faith based system work in tandem with logic/science? Obviously no. Once it can be tested, verified etc it stops being labeled 'faith' and levels up to a tag like 'fact', 'science' etc.( When ppl claim some dogma from a faith based system is a fact you have to wonder what the hell are they talking about. They're called 'faith based' for a reason for f#*k's sake,, they are not based on fact.)

Religion on the other means a lot of things, so you'll have to clarify.

Just so I don't seem like a donkey I'll try to elaborate for you. Frankly, you should get what I'm trying to say by now. Mr Anony does. Anyways...

Nobody is calling you homophobic (I'm not sure if you'd really care, anyways. You might actually consider that an honor, see). Bigot? probably. Hypocrite? Definitely.
They,the people writing/directing etc this play ie, are gay christians. There are all types of christians on this rock.
They do not mean it as an insult. They are, in their opinion, bestowing Jesus with a great honor.

You can flip this around and say go back in time maybe 100 years and try to make a film featuring a black Jesus so as to make him more accessible to your fellow blacks, or whatever reason. Get some popcorn and a big umbrella then wait for the shitstorm from the majority of the caucasians of the era. This is, more or else, the exact same thing.

I point out I can't see why they would still want to be christians despite the fact that they are clearly not wanted there by most christians. Many look down on them to the point of being very abusive, including even physical, potentially mortal abuse and yet they still feel the need to be religious. (actually, many would pose the same question to black followers of judeo-christian faith during the slavery years etc, you are oppressed by a system, granted it may have been abused and a victim to cherry picking by the oppressors (which is exactly what most homophobes are doing now) and still choose to admire/revere it. Amazing..). If they are not accepted they should just move on. Who knows though, they have their reasons. Just as the black christians/muslims during the slavery years and many other examples.

It is more complicated than this (following your reasoning you are actually doing what you accuse them of doing, ie, being disrespectful to their beliefs. Most importantly, by a considerable margin, there are human/civil rights issues at play) but I'll just leave it at that. Time etc.

If you still don't get it... Anyways, I'm off.

Mr_Anony: What are crimes if not sins against the government?

We'll be diverging into another topic there. We could do that some other time, you could open a thread and get other opinions as well maybe? But hopefully we'll try to assert what is objectively true (as best we can). In that respect I don't think that statement is in any way correct in most contexts (most involving human rights). We could maybe examine victimless 'crimes' (not sure if it should be classified a crime if it's victimless) as well? I'm not one for constant back and forth so it'd be nice if others jumped in.

I only added the effeminate bit with regards to my hypocrisy claims anyways. In case anyone brought the 'I was born black excuse' (which you didn't use to your credit imo, though I suspect it's just because you didn't think about it, so use it now (or in the future) should you wish to push the case that having 'teh gay' is unnatural, *sigh*) as an excuse to still be a bigot. Many were born gay as well, some chose to be gay. Ultimately, even for those who 'choose' to be gay, it's a human rights issue. Also another topic obviously, but such a hot-water one I doubt it could be discussed reasonably even here.

Mr_Anony: Quite a reasonable response, now please consider this reasonably:
For the religious, homosexuality is a sin much like lying, stealing murder etc. To make a religious icon -which the adherents hold dear- sinful is to insult the religion. doesn't matter if you don't have a problem with the sin yourself

For instance, If I said that your mother is a prostitut[i]e[/i], you have every right to be angry. it doesn't matter if I see nothing wrong in prostitution myself. When you make it known to me that you have been insulted, my response should be an apology and not a lecture on how pr[i]o[/i]stitutes also have feelings (that would be very insensitive and rude)

You speak for all religious, or even all xtians? From many other point of views Jesus is their 'mother' too. If you insulted my mother and I assumed it slander worst I'd do is take you to court and we could determine there if what you did was libel. We'd determine your motive, or intent. In this case it's gay people portraying someone they admire as gay. If anything, they are honoring you (hence my last paragraph). Your argument stands if your intentions were bad. If you really thought prostitution was a good thing then well I'd just have to realize my view is not the only one on the planet and move on. Following your reasoning they could say you are the one insulting them by determining being gay, which they obviously think of as an ok/good thing, is somehow wrong and not fit to be applied to someone they admire. You should apologize then, no?

Mr_Anony: The rest of your post doesn't really have much to do with the point I was making originally however, one thing you may want to note is that being effeminate does not equal being a homose[i]x[/i]ual. I have met quite a number of effeminate heterosexuals.
Homosexuality is defined by same-gender se[i]x[/i]/lust and nothing else.

Again see up for why I left this in, they are trying to honor Jesus when most of his adherents clearly choose to remain bigoted (or do 'what Jesus will do' in another speak). As for the effeminate bit, do I give the impression that I don't know effeminate != homosexual? Well, I don't. I have met stereotypical 'macho' men who are gay when no one's watching, as well as effeminate ones that are clearly hetero's, doesn't change my point. Certain people being prosecuted for sins, not crimes, and that should never stand.

Mr_Anony: Of course, instead of paying attention to the sensitivity of the issue, we can always talk about the bigotry and hypocrisy of these evil evil Christians who just will not stand back and let their Savior be defamed like normal civilized people would do.

You and I probably disagree on what normal civilized people are.

I am being insensitive, so are you. You do realize this demonized gay people have feelings too? Many religious seem to have a very hard time seeing other peoples vision of things, or getting their heads out of their asse.s as I believe it's called. Somehow they assume the world was built just for them.

And it is bigotry and hypocrisy, especially when done by black people (because of our recent history). There is no other way to cut it. Some people are born so effeminate when I see them being forced to play gender roles I feel disgusted, it is a great injustice. We've been screaming about having no rights for so long then turn around and do the same to another group. wtf? Even for those who choose to be gay, it is their right, and in no way any of your business. Nor should it disturb you, really. Or are people afraid one of them will accidentally slip and land on their backs? If you don't like the movie, don't see it. Problem solved. Of course you are free to protest all you want, just I am free to spend the whole time cringing at your antics.


I do think homosexuals too are being a little silly though. If a group, in this case the judeo-chritian and hindu crowd, are not ready to accept them, why keep on trying and jumping onto their turf? Really, do you need religion that badly? If you're clearly not wanted there, move along. Even those being repressed, left with no choice, else they'd starve and die, be ridiculed, ostracized etc, should not actively support religion. They should be seeking to move away from that path, even if subtly. To be fair to them some start their churches etc and many truly have no other option then to openly declare for whatever religion. This is clearly just my opinion though, and not central to the issue.

EDIT: lol, oops. damit internet...

What's this film called bigo.. Err good sir? Black ppl, we do weird stuff all the time. I'm beyond the point of being embarrassed though. Not so long ago, a film portraying jesus as black would have caused a similar reaction from oyinbos. Talk about hypoc... Anyways, like I was asking, what's the name of this film good sir?

Is this a serious question? It should be marked christian only, or something. Atheistic 'cognitive dissonance detector' could overload and crash. Even if I were religious I'd be pissed at the question. You had no problem with virgin births, water to wine, walking on water etc and now suddenly have an issue with this...

Oh, you're trolling. My bad, nothing to see here. Move along

nell07: didnt watch d video either, but yea i consider myself largely open minded... Wouldnt say the same about most religious people though.
Mostly i see products of chains of indoctrination.
40% don't even understand their stand.. *shrugs*.. Jst saying

Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell

I'd have to agree, many of the people here have not given it any thought at all. I really can't tell who's trolling and who's not anymore. Many simply repeat what has been hammered into them. Irreligious look around and wonder what god needs so many sheep for. Seriously, that's a very unhealthy desire. An odious goal. Meh, so long as they don't trample on other peoples rights, whatever makes them happy makes me happy (sort of).

The video points out some basic things. Like how people jump to a supernatural conclusion once they do not have an explanation then refuse to see the alternatives (at the same time calling whoever points out the alternative close-minded, irony, eh?). Other common errors in reasoning are also pointed out. I would recommend it to atheists, theists, everyone. As any good atheist should know, we are all capable of making mistakes.

Deep Sight: The bold is foolishness. Sorry to say that. Its the truth.

Deep, profound, and firmly-grounded foolishness.


Oh, and might I add: if you cannot see the profound philosophical issues Anony raised, and the counter-questions he used to illustrate the point, you are yet to start in this life. No arrogance, please. Just the hard truth.

My dictionary has 'truth' as:
A fact that has been verified
Confirmity to reality or actuality
A true statement
The quality of being near to the true

I'm sorry good sir but I think you don't know how to use the word. And I like the colors. Don't worry about offending me, I don't take most of I read from you seriously.

There is no purpose to evolution, it just is. Intelligent life? Then after millions of years and millions of species only 1 species we know of attained this? We are just lucky our ancestors won the genetic lottery and began to think abstractly. Now we can rationalize, have emotions/experiences and lord over the rest of life on this planet. If you want to dream up something to make yourself feel even more special, that's fine. I hope you don't abuse the word 'truth' there as I'm a pendant of sorts, and that irks me.

As for the bit about not beginning life, that's your opinion. I find the 'profound philosophical issues' he raises irrelevant. Again, knock yourself out if it gives you some sense of purpose (hopefully not misguided). This is a science thread though, no?