₦airaland Forum

Joagbaje: Did he go ,for medical test or he just claimed to be healed?

I drove him myself to take the test

Htf should I know? Of course he claims he did.

I cannot believe where you're going with this...

Joagbaje: It's possible to tell them to stop if their healing is confirmed . There are people that have been prayed for and symptoms stopped and when they went for HIV test they tested negative , it will be wrong and unbelieving to continue such drugs . It can kill their faith

Indeed, I do know of someone personally who was 'cured', he even had a party. Then he died a few months later.

You, good ser, are every f%%^%& thing that's wrong with humanity. Raw, unadulterated cancer. How you can live with yourself, frankly, bewilders me.

Perhaps they should divert all that money spent on retrovirals to tithes? Surely god needs the money to add to his perfection, yes?

italo: They'd say same to you: "the answer must be 4, else you're objectively wrong."


Of course. Though people differ on what's objective and whats not.

You now look like an oyinbo man attempting galala
Surely I don't have to point out why, yes?

♫ Dance dance ♬♩

italo: Exactly what your opponents would ask you.

And the answer must be 4, else they'd be objectively wrong, see?

italo: I have not declared my stance on that...because I am trying not to digress.

It's very relevant..... Do you concur; "there are objective facts" ?

TerryCarr: why would you want too? if your gay the last thing you want is the "PEACEFUL AND LOVING" Christians try to kill you.

https://www.atheistmemebase.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/330-Morality-Slavery-or-Homosexuality-Guess-which-one-the-bibles-ok-with-biblical-ethics-insanity-bigotry.jpg

This, op. Your behavior borders on being silly. It's like a slave trying to become a slaver.

There's nothing wrong with being xtian. Or muslim, or satanist, or whatever, so long as you're sane about it and do not expect others to indulge your for silly, illogical reasons. That's your business.

And the nature of belief/disbelief/etc; you cannot force it. You either believe in it, or don't (or don't care, etc). Can I force you to believe 2+2=5? (I could do that actually, but that would be brain washing more or else, or.....indoctrination). So, disregarding indoctrination, you either believe in Jesus or not, simple. You could pretend you hold a different view, but you'd just lying to yourself for no good reason. So, as long as you aren't infringing on the rights of others, why should you bend over for them?

It's more complicated than this, but meh..

tl,dr; indoctrination aside, go with the flow so long as you aren't oppressing anyone else.

Mr Troll: TELEPATHY

Stop it. Stop making fun of him. Despite the fact that neither of telepathy/telekinesis have been shown to exist, apparently these phenomena rely on a material base, therefore they're not consistent with an immaterial material god??!! So by which logic did you arrive at telepathy with?? It is (make believe, unfounded, but somehow still) material as well!! Stop making fun of him!!

The words he's looking for, for stuff that manifests without a physical base, could be magic, voodoo, jazz, folly, delusions, stoopidity, etc etc (well, many of these rely on a brain, but you get my point). But it seems he does not want to be associated with any of these. I know, his worrying about reputation even reminds me or eric cartman's shennanigans in this episode (no vex, couldn't fine shorter version, but it's a classic, the one where he gets beat up by wendy and starts to fear for his reputation among his 'friends'). Regardless, you shouldn't mock him! That's just rude.

And yes, he isn't trying to create a god??!!, despite the fact that he cannot find any scientifically viable phenomena that can manifest without a material base. No, it must be so, immaterial because..... GOD??!!

^^^^
Stop being silly. Via telekinesis

Hero10001: Oga Donroxy,

Yo do well, Thank God for you!

You have finished these Lazy atheist (Kay 17 should be crying now)..!
wiegraf and LogicBoy are outta words!!


Let them come and rebutt you Logically..

Please Oga Donroxy, don't let then run away from this tread, they started it.
Dish it out to em as e dey Hot.
Teach them, make them learn by force SO they will remain as "OLODO" forever.


If not, who will??


do you have any blog or thread where i can follow you?

Maybe facebook will be great.

Please tell me.


May GOD bless you Sir.

https://www.nuk3.com/gallery/images/comedy/full/80.jpg

Dealing with mo.rons on the level of uyi (in particular) and chibuhem isn't a paid vocation, then you expect energy to be wasted on the good @don? After freeing myself from uyi's genius, don't you think I deserve a holiday? So

https://hypehumor.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/im-speechless.jpg


Then again, you don't understand this as well....

italo: Same reason your opponents would give for contradicting you.

Exactly how can you contradict 2+2=4, oh lover of tap dancing?

italo: The keyword in the above is "SEEM."

So you have no problems with scientists claiming there's no such thing as reality or objective truth?

italo: Logicboy continually complained. And humbledbygrace said members had complained.

Really? lol

lb I would guess was trolling you. Mayhaps serious, but unlikely. As for others, I wouldn't know. It depends on context, but really..

italo: She said I called someone "satan" and "Atheists dont like it" (even though I was actually referring to satan himself, but that aside) - I then asked if she would ban any Atheist that called Christians "retards,""fools""crazy" etc and any anti-Catholic that called Catholics "demonic" and "satanic" because Catholics-Christians dont like those.

lol. Did an atheist actually complain about that?

Madam HBG, you seem to have figured it out already but if I may, I highly doubt any of us would be insulted by that(some would probably wear it as a badge of honor actually). Sure depending on context it might be insulting or slander, but in most cases, if one were complaining about that, the complainant would be being far too sensitive imo. Opinions though

italo: I dont know what you are talking about.

I do know, however, that various people hold on to contradictory positions and declare their positions to be in conformity with logic.

What you have failed to do is tell me why your understanding of 'conformity to objective logic' should be adopted by all the world.

Because 2+2=4

Kay 17: Now we are faced with identifying what's true beliefs from false one, it becomes obvious there are self evident truths like your existence, laws of thought/logic, mathematical truths.

Agree?

italo: You could say so...even though some scientists would tell you that you dont really exist so there is really no math or logic.

Some scientists say...

You even seem to have problems with scientists (?) that claim there is no (implied objective, in this context, as they're 'self evident') logic.

This is very simple, so I'll assume you have no problem being labeled by some random guy on the internet as disingenuous, yes?

italo: @logicboy, I answered your question in the last part of my previous post.

There are countless miracles every minute.

No miracle claimed by the Church has been debunked.

You hold yourself more logical than religious people. But you are unable to show these through these laws and principles of logic. Its not strawman.

Everybody claims they are logical and their adversary illogical based on the laws and principles of logic. Who is to arbitrate?

2+2=4 is open to interpretion?
Logic itself isn't subjective. Axioms (for lack of a better word), on the other hand, could be. Note; 'could'

Aren't you tired of dancing? Show which axioms are subjective or SHARRAP

CodeHouse: @Logicboy03 and wiegaf...pls do not post unless you prove to us that you are an atheist, show us a link to your papers, thesis and portfolio..I will do thesame this is necessary so as not to waste more time with wrong people, for it is obvious you are not an atheist..if you are so smart, lets see your contributions to humanity and not all these your nonsense..WE seriously await those links..

wiegraf: Addressing the folly you've displayed would require many, MANY years of research from what I can tell

And would provide some startling insight into stoopidity

A starting point, consider this

well...:
@codeHouse (again, please change the name)...pls do not post unless you prove to us that you are xtian, show us a link to your papers, thesis and portfolio..I will do thesame this is necessary so as not to waste more time with wrong people, for it is obvious you are not an xtian..if you are so smart, lets see your contributions to humanity and not all these your nonsense..WE seriously await those links..

What exactly was going through your head (not sure if you have a mind) when you made this post?

I await your papers, good ser

Logicboy03: You, a scientist? Lol


IT lab assistant.

He's now embarrassing scientists. And he seems to think coder = scientist by default.

Oya, @oga, show us these scientific papers? Are they as real as your god?

^^^
"BIG grama" are your words, not mine...

Can't be bothered with your posts, including the first one I quoted, which aren't insulting in any way*. Addressing the folly you've displayed would require many years of research from what I can tell

Again, get rid of the 'code' in your name. You shame the trade with your distinguished stoopidity.



*please note the sarcasm

CodeHouse: Albert Einstien mentioned GOD in is famous quotes...so what are we talking about, the proof that GOD exists, starts with you believing..it is obvious that as humans, you cannot think beyond what your brain can comprehend, enough with all the complexities and BIG grama, GOD will remain GOD whatever anyone thinks..HE is not subjected to your demands..YOU cannot comprehend HIM, thus the argument

He did use the word 'god', eg;

Herr Einstein: The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

----

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

----

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

----

During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world.

If you had a functioning brain you'd realize his usage of the word 'god' was "BIG grama" to describe something completely different from, and I quote the man himself, your childish nonsense.


I know, if you had a functioning brain you wouldn't be religious, but still needed saying.. And please get rid of the word 'code' in your username

Alfa Seltzer: You have just confounded yourself even more by insisting on combining 2 different worlds: 2 & 3 Ds. So after everything, you arrived at the amazing conclusion that in our 3D world seemingly straight lines are actually curves thus no straight lines in 3D. And no "2D straight line in reality neither.

I remember our Big Bang discussion and just laughed at whether you realise that BigBangers based their theory of our real 3D universe on flatness (no curves, not even minute). Infact, according to them, the only reason light travels at a straight line is because of this flatness. So, here you are going against them here so just you can challenge me.

Fail doesn't begin to define you.

In any case, at the base we are actually saying the same thing: things change characteristics depending on perspective.

You seem confused, oh evil one. Are you sure you understand what they mean by flat?

The model of the universe is flat, what does have to do with this? Are you saying they insist relativity, a core component of the bb, does not exist? Far as I know, most bb models don't even predict a flat universe...

Do you have but.thurt after all this time? Let's take this to that thread

Alfa Seltzer: Ah, I get it. You are talking of a straight line in the sense that I am not walking like a drunk or one possesed by the holy spirit. However, the surface I travel on in a curved one. That's the perspective I was talking about. It's like looking at the lines on a basket ball. They may seem straight to some people and curved to others.

However, if you take is like that, then all lines are straight depending on orientation. I would thus for the purpose of the original question, assume that the poser was asking about angles on a 2 dimensional triangle.

Op didn't specify and that is a triangle. And all triangles in existence actually happen to be like that, not flat. Also, the holy sp.irit is mysterious and omnipotent, capable of absurdities, so you're wrong there.

On a semi-related note, the picture you paint isn't exactly correct from where I'm sited. It's not a case of orientation per se, it's a case of what is actually happening. All spacetime is curved. Through the universe mass contorts, no exceptions. So in actuality every single line in the universe is curved. 2d exists only in theory

It's obviously silly to account for the curving in everyday life as the effects are so negligible you can consider them non-existent at these scales. Just as it would be silly to go about using the fact that you are both a wave and particles to thereby attempt walking through a wall. The effects of weirdness and uncertainty are virtually non-existent/detectable at the macro level, so much so they are ignored, but they still exist. Same thing here with geometry

And another another note related to actual motion, which every single atom in the universe is constantly engaged in. Supposing you stay still and flash a powerful laser ahead, you'll see the light follow a straight line. However, an observer from another location will see the path of the light curve because, of course, you're actually moving in other directions as well. Point is while you might think yourself moving in a straight line at any time, you actually aren't. You will be following a curved path, just like the light would, and this affects everything.

No such thing as a flat, 2d straight line in reality. (mayhaps at some yet to be discovered quantum level, but you get the point)

Alfa Seltzer: How can you call a curved line straight? If I start walking, I wouldn't be moving in a straight line but on a curve. Why are you thinking like a flat earth muslim that when he is looking into outer space thinks he's looking at mecca.

You would be moving in a straight line......on a curve.

Doesn't mean the world is flat. Where do you even get that?

Alfa Seltzer: Remember that light travels in a straight line. Flash your torch and see if its light comes up behind you. SMDH.

Correct, but space does not. So if you bend space, you bend light, and you well know that's been observed.

As far as the light is concerned though, it's moving in a straight line. On it's plane, it's a straight line. You, however, not on the same plane can see the curve. That does not mean the light isn't moving in a straight line, it is, just not on your plane.

italo: But your views of God are not the same everywhere.

True

italo: objective logic are not the same everywhere.

False

2 + 2 = 4 is objective logic for instance


........and those are not my views. Logic--logic ♪ ~~~~ logic LoGIC ♪♫

italo: I am hardly making any claims.

Most of what I am doing is ASKING.

Why should the world be subjected to YOUR view of "objective logic" when their view of it is different.

You say 2+2=4 is proof of your position.

They say 2+2=4 is proof of their position.

Why should I believe you rather than they?

Aha, but it's objective logic. It isn't mine, or yours, it's objective. Unless you can show otherwise.

2 + 2 is 4 everywhere, yes?

Kay 17: He meant an angle of more than 180 degrEes

That's more than 180, it's 90 + 90 + 50, which is 230

Alfa Seltzer: In 3Ds, any shape can turn to any shape depending on orientation and perspective. That is why some people say that we have a distorted view of the world and that life is an illusion. The post asking for a proof of a triangle meant a 2D surface triangle. The response he got was that of a distorted triangular shape posed on a 3D shpere.

2D shapes are constants: A rectangle has fixed properties and remains a rectangle until shifted in which case it immediately ceases to be a rectangle but becomes a parallelogram. (mind you, both still remain quadrilaterals with sum angles of 360 degrees)

There's nothing magical about maths, just people confusing things. And no, I'm not an engineer of some sort. Just suffice it to say that I think I have more knowledge than I should have.

I really don't know how you came about your conclusion that orbits are straight lines. If some object has a straight surface, then its orbit would be straight but if the surface is curved or zig-zagged, its orbit will follow the same pattern.

He never specified flat, 2d euclidean triangle. He simply said triangle, and that's a triangle. 3 sides, straight lines.

As for orbits being straight lines, start walking in a straight line.....around the world

italo: Those who think God is all-wise also point to objective logic.

Why should be subjected to your definition of objective logic?

Can you show it is subjective, rather than claim it is so?

Again, you're conflating issues. I've provided solid mathematical proofs for my assertions, nothing subjective here

^^^

Logic. Objective, unless you can point out where it's subjective.


And I've proofs other than that one actually. Ultimately, your god??!! could be all-wise, but it must be also be all-foo.lish. Or are you saying an all-wise being does not know how to be all-foo.lish?

^^

We're discussing the perfect foo.lishness of the great one, god??!!

^^^
Thanks!!

^^^

Why do I have to deal with this nonsense..

^^^

Don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about when I say this is objective.

There are no ambiguities here, else, please show which bits are subjective