₦airaland Forum

DeepSight:
The claims I make are simple and cannot be argued against logically: that God is eternal and transcendental for example. Left to oloriburuku Pastor AIO, even saying such, should be forbidden.

But, but in most logical frameworks there's nothing simple and a lot to be disputed in the example you give...

DeepSight:
Don't you think that living as a spirit being in a world of spirit forms absent the mortal requirements of living as a rat would be a superior existence?

Depends on what a spirit being and my values are, good ser

DeepSight:
Not to the extent that the positive description is inchoate.

We can know positive things bout anything which are still inchoate.

For example we do not know all there is to know yet even about ourselves and our own bodies, but we still know some things which we may give positive descriptions on, is that not the case?

The simple delineation between my position and that of alakori Pastor AIO is that I state certain attributes of God whilst still acknowledging that God is a mystery. Those attributes that I state and argue for are none but the inescapably obvious. On the other hand, alakori Pastor AIO retires into his chasm with a Jewish-Like attitude that noting must be said about God's nature at all.

With some subjects there are very few things that would qualify as inescapably obvious

His problem might be that you are making positive claims about things you cannot know, and he seeks to avoid that

So, the problem might not be that you're making claims, just the nature of said claims

4kings:
A Designer

You've just admitted there most likely is a designer. You may choose to name it such, but I would use a much more forward term: god

So, as you can see, likely thereisgodoh

DeepSight:
Amadioha retrieve your tongue, I did not say any such thing.

Now it is eminently clear that a principality has taken hold of you and demons are speaking inside your throat.

Wouldn't a positive description of god qualify as an absolute position, good ser?

4kings:
Ok, It would be illogical to be assertive that the universe is not a simulation.

Goot

Now, if you accept that this is likely a simulation, then what would the being who's running the simulation qualify as?

DeepSight:
Na confirmento simulation.

I do tire for the simulation sef, but I don't relish suicide.

Get a tank of nitrogen or helium, you'd go with a smile on your face sef

Getting one is a little difficult tho

Living as a rat can be tough, but I wouldn't have it any other way

4kings:
I said it can't be known for sure.

You aren't answering the question I'm asking

4kings:
I don't think this can be known for sure, except we finally discover the origin of the universe.

If the universe were a simulation it could be rigged in a way that we'd never be able to determine its origin, but that's besides the (immediate) point

Simply: wouldn't it be illogical to assume this universe isn't a simulation given the odds in the scenario I gave above?

4kings:
Nope. Something that cant be explained yet doesn't make it supernatural. Just like how the primitive men thought rain or famine came about.
Laws are derived from observations and understanding made on phenomenon with verifiable facts. Lack of understanding does not equate 'Supernatural'.

Then we are in agreement. All must follow some natural law, else they'd be truly supernatural, and that would be impossible, no?

If they follow natural laws then that would mean they could be modeled, correct?

Goot

So, for instance, this universe could be modeled as a computer program. If this is correct, exactly why would you choose to believe that this universe isn't a simulation?

Put another way, in the future we've built machines capable of simulating galaxies and whatnot, and people are playing around with them for whatever reason. Projects, maybe even fun and games like the Sims 3030, whatever. My question is if that's possible, then exactly why wouldn't you believe this universe is a simulation as well. Thinking otherwise would plenty shortsighted and self centered, no?

Just as a religious would be plenty selfish to assume this universe was created just for him, it would be plenty self centered to assume all other universes are simulations save for this one, no?

4kings:
Simulation requires knowledge and understanding of the environment.
If the totality of processes and workings of the universe is known then it can be modeled or simulated as a computer program.

Do you believe they can be known?

Perhaps a better question would be "what would stop them from being known?", as if they can't be understood then that would imply something supernatural, yes? Sone thing that natural laws cannot explain, yes?

Do you believe this universe can be modeled as a computer program?

If not, why not?

I vaguely remember someone constantly whining about how his good friend is neither here nor there. Iirc, complaining about how said person asserted you cannot absolutely know anything except, of course, the assertion he was making at the moment (more or else the gist of things; I simplify).

Now, said person is here claiming his good friend held an absolute position other than that

Which one u dey ser?

I Hail both good sers BTW, on this most śhitty of days

All you regressive lefties, I blame you

This is sorely on you

You're the reason we can't have nice things

Fyck

GrizzlyBear:
I think from now on, I am going to stop referring to myself as an atheist. I think the term ATHEIST, has been adulterated and hijacked by people who think that believing in the non existence of god, gives them the right to explicitly disprove everything that seems subjectively implausible to them.

The need to create this thread was aroused just minutes ago, when I read a comment from a thread I created earlier today about life fields. I asked a question about ghosts, and an atheist replied me saying that ghosts don't exist and it's fiction. I was so outraged. I wasn't angry at his opinion, but I was angry at the way in which he expressed it, which invariably brought to mind, the exasperating instances where atheists just directly reject claims, because they deem it implausible, without even critically examining such claims.

Atheism is the disbelieve in the existence of God, not ghosts, telekinesis, telepathy, precognition, magic, spells, or things we don't have sufficient knowledge about. There are branches of science and certain scientific hypothesis such as: the hypothesis of multiverses and parallel universes, that have been marginalized and relegated to the periphery of the domain of science, because most scientists don't want to bother themselves with such things because they think it's implausible or mystical.

I hate when Atheists, just because they don't believe God exists, think they should also reject any "supernatural" claim that seems implausible to them.

I really hate this Atheist tag. I have decided to drop it. You guys do the exact same thing religious people do. You fill in gaps in knowledge with arrogant assertions of nonexistence. Atheism shouldn't stand as a barrier to expand your knowledge about your world, instead, it should be a spring board to exploring nature and having an open mind about new ideas and experiences.

That's why I dislike Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Denneth, and every other arrogant, close minded, atheist out there.
Sam Harris is the only outspoken atheist I can bother listening to, because although he doesn't believe the God of any religion exists, he is open to other theories that explain "supernatural" occurrences. It was through him I learned about the Multiverse hypothesis, Chakras and certain meditational practices that provide experiences that have been held hostage by religion.

You atheists allow your atheistic world view to prevent you from being open minded, just the same as religious people. You all are the same.

Technically speaking, you're an atheist. That's all that really matters.

Subjectively, I wouldn't regard you as one as you seem to believe in a lot of nonsense just because

What's the difference between believing in supernatural ghosts vs believing in supernatural god?

Nothing

Therefore, I see little difference between you and the average theist. Heck, I even think quite a few would be more consistent and logical than you

DeepSight:
This is rather odd.

Is it really possible for a person to "not exist"?

When one says that "a person can either exist or not exist" - this suggests that you may have persons that exist and persons that do not exist.

Is this not a very self evidently false thought construction?



For is there any such thing as a "person" that does "not exist"?

It is a flat out contradiction in terms therefore to say that "a person can either exist or not exist" - thus suggesting two alternate possible types of persons: those that exist and those that do not exist!

Evidently therefore, the correct thing to say would be - "Persons exist" - or - "a person exists" - period.

@ OP: Does this build a thread of reasoning somewhere in what you are trying to say regarding the self existent nature of God?

PS - You rightly should not worry too much about the futilist AIO who starts nowhere and goes nowhere: as a matter of fact, he has propounded quite exactly what your OP says in the past, in simply different words.

After posting such drivel, how do you sleep at night? What do you down hope to accomplish with this?

What are you even beginning to suggest? That negatives cannot make logical sense?

This being particularly ironic, considering it's your side that consistently asks us to prove a negative. But let's not even begin to get into that....

BTW, are you and Josh the same person oga?

Immorttal:
because there is no apparatus to detect how it happened.

You could monitor the activity in my brain using scans. Indeed, I believe sleep paralysis has been studied in labs, no? Is that not enough? Or do you need me to elaborate?

As for astral projection, if I claimed I did a hardmirror and went to Obama's bedroom, you could just verify with the White House,no? Otherwise, I'd suggest you discarded my claims as rubbish until I brought you something more substantial

Or better yet, you could point our there's no difference between ap and sleep paralysis; it's all in your head

hahn:
But you saw it. Without special lens, right?

No no no

I was it

I was the spirit, so I could feel (in a sense) myself.

Of course I could not see my spirit. I could see my real body though

Immorttal:
i can assure you that there is nothing like a sleep paralysis. Science musn't explain everything.

Which part of this phenomenon do you think is unexplainable by science good ser?

hahn:
Lol. Float? Can you repeat this in my presence with a video camera?

Don't be silly

You can't take a picture of my spirit

Not without special cameras

Immorttal:
did you practise this intentionally or by chance?

The sleep paralysis was chance

The astral projection was intentional

hahn:
You had a classic case of sleep paralysis

Sleep paralysis doesn't explain how I was able to float around in my room.

Winchie is a better explanation

Some clowns will claim it's not the religion and defend this. Call anyone that criticizes this racist. Then look you in the eye and claim they are liberal....

You can't make this śhit up

Buharimustdie20:
[/b]
Problems of religion
#1
Thinking men are better than women and should be able to control them
#2
Using the bible to justify evil,stupid,crazy,archaic and stupid behaviors
#3
Females thinking that men are higher than them, or that they are the cause of the problems on earth

The guy clearly mentioned Islam as the main inspiration of his folly, but you mentioned the Bible instead in your point 2

Not saying the Bible is much better, but really, why does Islam seem to get such a pass?

BTW Op, lol. And post your source

Xiadnat:
Well, Interesting bit. I have been always curious and fascinated with the supernatural.

I have dreams and sometimes feels real where I am either flying, hopping or just doing all kinds of ab-normal stuff.

Sometimes, I have dreamt of being attacked by evil, powerful forces but really the only thing that wakes me up and gets those forces to release their grip or hold on me, is when I scream JESUS. That's how come I am convinced that name or perhaps the person ascribed to that name is a powerful being. I don't joke with the name of JESUS. It saves.

I am a big fan of Charmed and good magic or witchcraft themed movies, shows. But, the bible condemns it. So, I would not venture into it.

It was very enjoyable.

Why in the world wouldn't you do it just because the Bible says so?

True story

Had a nightmare..

While waking up it turned to a waking dream, where winches are holding you down...

You know, you're sort of conscious, but still asleep, can't move your body, etc.

So I had a happy thought - why not some astral projection?

So I tried it, and it worked!

It was real cool, thank you very much

But I think I only half succeeded. I was moving OK, yes, floating, some buzzing (I think I heard mosquitoes), but I saw nothing other than a reflection of my face?

Need to try again. Maybe I get lucky, see fully clothed beautiful women

I wonder if any one else has had these.

redditor: I learned a few things about breastfeeding that I thought I would share. I never knew that breastfeeding was such a home-wrecker. Maybe this is common knowledge, but it was new and quite strange to me.

1). If your wife is unhappy that you married a much younger woman and claims to have breastfed her to force a divorce, she must have breastfed the new wife more than 2x.

In this Hadith a man marries a younger woman. Wife #1 claims to have breastfed her, probably hoping he will be forced to divorce her, but Muhammad saves the day and says the younger woman must have been breastfed more than twice to make the marriage invalid.

2). The breastfeeding rules prove the Quran has not been preserved.

How many times does a baby/man need to be breastfed before a marriage is unlawful? At one time, the Quran had a verse for how many times a person needed to be breastfed before a marriage was unlawful. God couldn’t decide, so he abrogated from 10 sucklings to 5 sucklings with a new verse, but Muhammad died before the verse made it into the final Quran….neither verse are in the Quran because the Quran has not been perfectly preserved, but the ruling for breastfeeding still stands.

3). If a husband and wife share a wet-nurse, they must get a divorce.

Before the days of bottles and formula, if a mother did not produce enough milk for her baby a wet-nurse or nursemaid was used. This was a woman who may or may not have been related that still had breast milk and would feed the baby until either the baby could eat food or the new mom produced enough breast milk to nourish the baby. A woman could breastfeed multiple babies for years as long as her milk did not dry up.

In these Hadith here and here, a slave comes to a husband and wife and says she breastfed both of them when they were babies. The man calls her a liar, probably because he knew the marriage would be invalid. Upon further investigation, they find she is telling the truth. Muhammad ordered them to get a divorce.

4). If you have a foster son who is past the age of puberty or a close family friend who is male and lives with you, the wife/mother must breastfeed him or he must be treated like a normal male acquaintance.

In this Hadith a boy who was raised in their home hits puberty and is considered a man, but he is not a biological child. Her husband becomes jealous and so they ask Muhammad what to do. His answer….breastfeed the young man so that he will become unlawful and that will make your husband’s jealousy go away. Remember, it takes 10 breastfeedings before he would become unlawful to her. Apparently his wife breastfeeding a teenage boy 10 times did the trick!

The other implication of this is if a husband accidentally gets breast milk in his mouth 10 times while getting it on with his wife, they must get a divorce.

5). Even in modern times if you are unable to breastfeed your adopted, oops adoption was abolished foster son, he must treat you like a female acquaintance when he hits puberty.

A 15-year-old asks islamqa how he must treat his adopted mother now that he is a teenager. Of course, he had to be corrected that adoption was forbidden in Islam and was told, “that woman is a non-mahram to you, and she must observe hijab before you and interact with you as a non-mahram woman would.” Can you imagine being an adoptive mother who can no longer treat your son as your son once he hits puberty?

https://m.reddit.com/r/exmuslim/comments/56azmo/til_about_breastfeeding/

So, muslims, how legit is this?

PS, there are sources in the original

hahn:
Na wa o. When I was just celebrating johnnydon's retirement from epistology

Brace yourself. At least johnny is easy to follow..

hahn:
Ehen?

Just wait for the dudes disappointing reply.

Why do you think johnnydon22 stopped writing epistles?

Wait na, his heart's in the right place

That said, lol yeah.. But I'm just going back to my roots... I used to write similarly all the time before

I no know wetin dey do me

hahn:
That guy ehn

No lie, you no read am finish

And I never finish sef....

Dats d short version