₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: There really are better things to do than worry about someone who regards himself as a stone.

GADDAMIT

Deep Sight: Fvcking hell, lolz. You dis guy, you dey on sometin i swear! That brought a laugh!

Well, it was a bit confusing. Not saying I'm not an a$$, but it still comes of as silly, my opinion.

We'll deal with our issues another day good ser, I really shouldn't be procrastinating and I'm fairly sure we'll reach a pointless impasse. I will open a thread when I'm in the mood, and whenever you could, you could then indulge me at your discretion.

But yes, most of those are (for the most part, I'll have to look at them) abstract. My point being materialists do not deny the existence of the abstract, and I already mentioned that hence I see no need to answer to the questions. Materialist POV is simply that they rely on the physical, the physical being the base. Also, I view thoughts simply as computations, like any PC can do. Only thing they miss are emotions, the ability to feel, etc, so I don't consider them anything special.

Anyhoo, enjoy the stouts.

chukkynwob: @Deepsight you have been around for so long to recall that weigraf only specialises in abuse and ad hominem.

Engaging him I must warn is not only futile but might dent your image in this section as an intellectual.

That's some butthurt, did I perchance jizz in your break fast my good intellectual?

Deep Sight: Aite. That's it. I see you won't answer the questions coz of fear. I am happy that the questions are there. Posterity and the reading public will judge for themselves the following -

1. The questions
2. If the point was made already in the questions
3. Your refusal to address them squarely.

I'm on my second Big stout, I need to sleep early today, stop wasting my time, Good night, kind noble and gracious sir.

And you as well, good ser.

Deep Sight: Its been almost 30 minutes since I posted those questions and you have made several replies. I would have thought it wise and honest to simply invest that time (which of course you do not have) into answering the very simple and short questions directly.

Anything less is just plain dodgy my friend, and you must per force agree that you are by now being absolutely dodgy.

So you have one? Can you get to it pls?

Deep Sight: I am not annoyed, I can only smile at a coward.

I see you are scared sh1tless and cant address the simple and short questions. It thus makes sense to pretend that I never asked the questions and also pretend that the point is not obvious within the questions - by asking me to get to my point.

I had credited you with better than this.

Whenever you are ready, be it tomorrow, next week, next month, next month, or even when we are all six feet under, the questions are there. You can go back to them and answer them.

Good evening, kind, noble and gracious sir.

Did you have a point?

Deep Sight: I only see this as cowardice. The questions are simple and very short. Do you fear perhaps that answering them will show up just how ridiculously untenable and thoughtless the materialist position is?

Please just keep that ego to one side. Me sef, I no dey vex for small jibes, so get over that already and stop wasting your time in that regard. I am not here to score petty sucker points. So it irritates me when anyone takes my yaps seriously.

If you will, be a man, and address yourself straight to my very simple and very short questions.

You seem to misunderstand. I have, and had, absolutely no intention of indulging in your chocolate flavored $hit. Get to your point. And, um, the f*&k do I care if you're annoyed? That's your prerogative, it's a free world.

Deep Sight: ^^^ Answer my questions above one by one and dont be distracted by your ego, my friend.

Erm, you're talking about egos?

Are you going to get to the point or not. In case it's not clear, I really could care less for you.... OPINIONS. Just want to point out the foolishness, and quickly.

Deep Sight: I verily believe that you are yet to sit down and have yourself a good think. Some of us were born, children of thought and thinking, and as such we see, you can take that to sound, if you please, as self congratulatory as you may wish.

For if you have begun to think at all, when I say to you that the being does not consist of matter, that existence itself does not consist of matter alone, you would have averted your mind to such questions as -

- Is a thought a physical material thing?

- Are emotions physical material things?

- Are ideas physical material things?

- Are dreams physical material things?

And at the existential level -

- Is time a physical material thing?

THEN - Do these things mentioned above exist or are they non-existent?

If they are non-existent, then you will agree that your existence is a mirage.

If they are existent, then you will agree that non material things exist.

You see, ol boy, I can only smile at you and the likes of thehomer. [size=16pt]I have millions of things to say to you both[/size], but life is too hectic. Suffice to say, however, for now, that you are yet to be schooled in thought, in thinking.

Now let me quickly save you the embarrassment you are about to fall into, by giving you a hint. Here is the hint: I did not ask if the things mentioned above are created or spring from by material things. I asked if they exist, and if they themselves are material things.

The big text, even I'm not that jobless. Get to your point or move along. I just want to point out your foolishness which involves, of course, this silly hubris.

So, let's see, about materialists and embarrassment, you are well aware they do not deny the existence of the abstract, yes?

Avicenna: Note that, I do not support Euthanasia for all cancer patients ooooooooooooooo. infact, if your disease is terminal but you are not in pain(pain is manageable), you should not be a candidate for euthanasia(checks and balances).

This so much even if it isn't (ostensibly) strictly logical. A similar situation, where 'discretion' (for lack of a better term) is important would be the dreaded and nasty.... torture.

Sam Harris' views on this are a source of infamy in a lot of quarters, however

sam harris: In The End of Faith, I argue that competing religious doctrines have divided our world into separate moral communities and that these divisions have become a continual source of human violence. My purpose in writing the book was to offer a way of thinking about our world that would render certain forms of conflict quite literally unthinkable.

In one section of the book (pp. 192−199), I briefly discuss the ethics of torture and collateral damage in times of war, arguing that collateral damage is worse than torture across the board. Rather than appreciate just how bad I think collateral damage is in ethical terms, some readers have mistakenly concluded that I take a cavalier attitude toward the practice of torture. I do not. Nevertheless, there are extreme circumstances in which I believe that practices like “water-boarding” may be not only ethically justifiable, but ethically necessary. This is not the same as saying that they should be legal (Crimes such as trespassing and theft may sometimes be ethically necessary, though everyone has an interest in keeping them illegal).

I am not alone in thinking that there are potential circumstances in which the use of torture would be ethically justifiable. The liberal Senator Charles Schumer has publicly stated that most U.S. senators would support torture to find out the location of a ticking time bomb. Such scenarios have been widely criticized as unrealistic. But realism is not the point of these thought experiments. The point is that unless your argument rules out torture in idealized cases, you don’t have a categorical argument against torture. As nuclear and biological terrorism become increasingly possible, it is in everyone’s interest for men and women of goodwill to determine what should be done if a person appears to have operational knowledge of an imminent atrocity (and may even claim to possess such knowledge), but won’t otherwise talk about it.

My argument for the limited use of coercive interrogation (“torture” by another name) is essentially this: If you think it is ever justifiable to drop bombs in an attempt to kill a man like Osama bin Laden (and thereby risk killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children), you should think it may sometimes be justifiable to water-board a man like Osama bin Laden (and risk abusing someone who just happens to look like him). It seems to me that however one compares the practices of water-boarding high-level terrorists and dropping bombs, dropping bombs always comes out looking worse in ethical terms. And yet, most people tacitly accept the practice of modern warfare while considering it taboo to even speak about the possibility of practicing torture. It is important to point out that my argument for the restricted use of torture does not make a travesty like Abu Ghraib look any less sadistic or stupid. I consider our mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib to be patently unethical. I also think it was one of the most damaging blunders in the last century of U.S. foreign policy. Nor have I ever seen the wisdom or necessity of denying proper legal counsel (and access to evidence) to prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay. Indeed, I consider much of what occurred under Bush and Cheney—the routine abuse of ordinary prisoners, the practice of “extraordinary rendition,” etc.—to be a terrible stain upon our nation.

Some people believe that while collateral damage may be worse than torture, they are independent evils, and one problem sheds no light upon the other. However, they are not independent in principle. In fact, it is easy to see how information gained through torture might mitigate the risk of collateral damage. If one found oneself with an apparent choice between torturing a known terrorist and bombing civilians, torturing the terrorist should seem like the more ethical option. But most people’s intuitions seem to run the other way. In fact, very few critics of my collateral-damage argument even acknowledge how strangely asymmetrical our worries about torture and collateral damage are. A conversation about the ethics of torture can scarcely be had, and yet collateral damage is often reported in the context of a “successful” military operation as though it posed no ethical problem whatsoever. The case of Baitullah Mehsud, killed along with 12 others (including his wife and mother-in-law), is a perfect example: Had his wife been water-boarded in order to obtain the relevant intelligence, rather than merely annihilated by a missile, we can be sure that torrents of outrage would have ensued.

It seems, in fact, that many people do not understand what the phrase “collateral damage” signifies, and thus they imagine that I have drawn a false analogy. Most assume that my analogy fails because torture is the intentional infliction of guaranteed suffering, whereas collateral damage is the unintentional imposition of possible suffering (or death). Apples and oranges.

But this isn’t true. We often drop bombs knowing that innocent people will be killed or horribly injured by them. We target buildings in which combatants are hiding, knowing that noncombatants are also in those buildings, or standing too close to escape destruction. And when innocent people are killed or injured—when children are burned over most of their bodies and live to suffer interminable pain and horrible disfigurement—our leaders accept this as the cost of doing business in a time of war. Many people oppose specific wars, of course—such as the war in Iraq—but no public figure has been vilified for accepting collateral damage in a war that is deemed just. And yet, anyone who would defend the water-boarding of a terrorist like Khalid Sheikh Muhammad will reap a whirlwind of public criticism. This makes no moral sense.

Again, which is worse: water-boarding a terrorist or killing/maiming him? Which is worse, water-boarding an innocent person or killing/maiming him? There are journalists who have volunteered to be water-boarded. Where are the journalists who have volunteered to have a 5000-pound bomb dropped on their homes with their families inside?


It is widely claimed that torture “does not work”—that it produces unreliable information, implicates innocent people, etc. As I argue in The End of Faith, this line of defense does not resolve the underlying ethical dilemma. Clearly, the claim that torture never works, or that it always produces bad information, is incredible (and well known to be false). There are cases in which the mere threat of torture has worked. One can easily imagine situations in which even a very low probability of getting useful information through torture would seem to justify it—the looming threat of nuclear terrorism being the most obvious case. It is decidedly unhelpful that those who claim to know that torture is “always wrong” never seem to envision the circumstances in which good people would be tempted to use it. Critics of my collateral-damage argument always ignore the hard case: when the person in custody is known to have been involved in terrible acts of violence and when the threat of further atrocities is imminent. If you think such situations never arise, consider what it might be like to capture a high-ranking member of al Qaeda along with several accomplices and their computers. The possibility that such a person might really be “innocent” or that he could “just say anything” to mislead his interrogators begins to seem less of a concern. Such captures bring us closer to a “ticking-bomb” scenario than many people are willing to admit.

Although I think that torture should remain illegal, it is not clear that having a torture provision in our laws would create as slippery a slope as many people imagine. We have a capital punishment provision, but it has not led to our killing prisoners at random because we can’t control ourselves. While I am strongly opposed to capital punishment, I can readily concede that our executing about five people every month hasn’t led to total moral chaos. Perhaps a rule regarding torture could be applied with equal restraint.

It seems probable, however, that any legal use of torture would have unacceptable consequences. In light of this concern, the best strategy I have heard comes from Mark Bowden in his Atlantic Monthly article “The Dark Art of Interrogation.” Bowden recommends that we keep torture illegal and maintain a policy of not torturing anybody for any reason—but our interrogators should know that there are certain circumstances in which it would be ethical to break the law. Indeed, there are circumstances in which you would have to be a monster not to break the law. If an interrogator found himself in such a circumstance and broke the law, there would be little will to prosecute him (and interrogators would know this). If he broke the law Abu Ghraib-style, he will go to prison for a very long time (and interrogators would know this too). At the moment, this seems like the most reasonable policy to me.

The best case against “ticking-bomb” arguments appears in David Luban’s article, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb,” published in the Virginia Law Review. (I have posted a PDF here.) Luban relies on a few questionable assumptions, however. And he does not actually provide an ethical argument against torture in the ticking-bomb case; he offers a pragmatic argument against our instituting a policy allowing torture in such cases. There is absolutely nothing in Luban’s argument that rules out the following law:

We will not torture anyone under any circumstances unless we are certain, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the person in our custody has operational knowledge of an imminent act of nuclear terrorism.

It seems to me that unless one can produce an ethical argument against torturing such a person, one does not have an argument against the use of torture in principle. Of course, my discussion of torture in The End of Faith (and on this page) addresses only the ethics of torture—not the practical difficulties of implementing a policy based on the ethics.

Many readers have found my views on this topic deeply unsettling. (For what it’s worth, I do too. It would be much easier to simply be “against torture” across the board and end the discussion.) I have invited readers, both publicly and privately, to produce an ethical argument that takes into account the realities of our world—our daily acceptance of collateral damage, the real possibility of nuclear terrorism, etc.—and yet rules out a practice like water-boarding in all conceivable circumstances. No one, to my knowledge, has done this. And yet, most people continue to speak and write as though a knockdown argument against torture in all circumstances were readily available. I consider it to be one of the more dangerous ironies of liberal discourse that merely discussing the possibility of torturing a man like Osama bin Laden provokes more outrage than the maiming and murder of children ever does. Until someone actually points out what is wrong with the collateral-damage argument presented in The End of Faith, I will continue to believe that its critics are just not thinking clearly about the reality of human suffering.

(For what it’s worth, I have since discovered that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy basically takes the same view.)

http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/response-to-controversy2#torture

The whole damned thing has to be read for context, but perhaps just the italicized is necessary. ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing, but see the parallels? It's rather tricky.

Avicenna: Regretfully, Wiegraff would have been euthanized long ago

They would celebrate. I'm not just lazy, I'm apparently unlikable as well. I really cannot tell why. I'm all sunshine for fu*&& sake.

Deep Sight: Doesn't matter, since we're just matter.

Look up words like synergy along with eediocy.

If being matter depresses you so much, pele. Many of us are perfectly fine accepting reality. Contrary to the beliefs of those who need special friends to deal with various fears, barbarians that need the fear of DOG before they value other life enough to respect it, those so unambitious and sheeple-like they are incapable of setting goals for themselves, plain old looneys, etc etc, godless materialists do just fine when assigning their various values.

Even non-eediotic theists have no problems understanding this.

Heaven?! Life based around using common sense, something we're sorely lacking.

Seriously, variety is always welcome. Religious just need to learn how to discern the appropriate times to invoke DOG! Tough, I know.

Deep Sight: You of course must be very very slow not to have realized a long time ago that it is nothing but ediocy not to agree with me. Agreeing with me is very smart: disagreeing is ediocy, becuase I am always right. Now, I am not being sarcastic: I mean it: I am always right. Disagree at peril of your own ediocy.

Thehomer and anyone else, including yourself sire, who believes that mindless matter purposelessly assembled human beings over time, is a prize winning eddiot and certainly no better than a goat or rooster in terms of brains or perception.

That's my point, you're rather foolish.

Deep Sight: It is a waste of time discussing with people who do not know what they are.

People who thnk that they were assembled by dead stones, purposelessly.

A man could not be more dead than one who has such a belief.

When I used the word 'corpse', it probably for this same reason was entirely lost on thehomer.

I will chat about this one last time. In Plaetton's thread on consciousness, or in a new thread. When I am done, I will NEVER discuss this ediocy again.

One doesn't agree with you = eediocy? Do you know what eediocy means?

This is all opinions, and we know what they're like, but I would think that word very clearly applies to you.

Alfa Seltzer: Maybe I should have said would instead of will. In any case, one could also argue that euthanasia proponents also haven't shown how it would be beneficial to humanity. In which case we ask, why do it?

How exactly is playing say golf beneficial to humanity? I don't see you denying golfers their rights when they indulge in an activity that does not infringe on your rights in any way, yes?

Again, it is about individual rights, the right of one to die with dignity. There is virtually no benefit to humanity when they are forced to live on despite their wishes, so this is a gross infringement of rights. Again, think of mothers and their rights to do as they wish with their bodies, and this isn't even nearly as contentious. No fetuses (or human beings/babies as they'd have us believe) involved here.

Alfa Seltzer: As they say, "all die be die". Whether killed humanely or in cold blood, one is dead. The definition is what the living tell themselves. Is killing an armed robber murder? If a mentally deranged man that is not responsible for his action rapes your daughter, kills your wife and you kill him in rage, is it murder? So where is the distinction? Also note that euthanasia is classified as murder in many countries.

We don't need to get into relativity atm. It isn't a murder in the sense that no one's rights are being infringed on, that's all.

Alfa Seltzer: Yes individual right is philosophical as well and very important. But more important is the collective well being. In the case of euthanasia, it is not eternal suffering like hell. The death the patient is praying for will surely come. He just have to exercise some patience. I would rather that single patient suffer for some time than to legally allow his murder, which, given the eventual abuse that will follow, will allow the legal murder of those that do not wish to die.

Again, this is about situations where it can be applied judiciously. Certainly NOT the 3rd world.

Alfa Seltzer: Well, if they had no chance of survival, they would already be dead. I believe in the saying that where there is life, there is hope. Succumbing to euthanasia means that humans have abandoned all hope and would rather kill themselves.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. There are always 'miracles', but miracles are supposedly special because they very, very, very rarely occur, yes?

The italicized is your belief. Good and fine, but I can't see why you should force it onto others, see?

The bolded, their choice. They aren't infringing on the rights of others, so what exactly is the problem again?

Alfa Seltzer: That's exactly my point!
If it's easier to kill people off when they ask to be killed or when they are sick, why would one invest in research that keeps people alive? People will start investing in pro-euthanasia undertakings. It is not a leap. It is how capitalism works. Remember Romney with his anti-abortion stance but is a major stake-holder in an aborted foetus disposal company.

And you're also well aware that for the few who would rather die gracefully, myriad others are well willing to fight on. I highly doubt they would be ignored. Where exactly do you think most profit would be made? Living patients, week in week out paying for treatments, or those that choose the one stop solution? Dead clients usually can't pay for any further medical services, yes?

Alfa Seltzer: Assisted suicide is one of those oxymorons that actually make no sense. If it is assisted, then it is not suicide. Especially as the person dying is totally passive in the act.

Passive in what way? This would occur only with the approval of the person committing suicide, yes? Actually, not with his consent, but at his very own behest, so was he passive when he went out of his way to seek out the procedure?

Alfa Seltzer: This argument is flawed on many levels and quite scary that one should think in those terms. Are you saying that people with some genetic 'flaws' should be disposed of? What do you mean by "already failed genes"?

This here is senseless 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!'. Were in the world do I mention that they should be disposed of?

Alfa Seltzer: Also, nobody is being forced to submit against one's will. If you are sick, a doctor's responsibility should be how to cure you. If you can't be cured, society has a duty to learn what caused your illness, try harder to find a cure, research it and see how to prevent others going through the same. Their duty is not to kill you off, whatever fancy name they choose to call your murder.

The bolded is clearly false. You are preventing one from receiving his preferred form of treatment simply because you don't like it. The patient has rights too, yes?

The italicized, not at the expense of individual rights when it clearly does not profit us.

The green, their duty also entails a lot of other things including helping society as a whole and helping patients and their... rights.

Alfa Seltzer: What I don't like is the message it gives: humans have reached their medical limit.

The individuals still have all their rights. If I had a disease that caused my arms to be cut off, it doesn't grant me the right to be wanked-off by someone else whenever I wish.

The bolded, again, I wonder where you draw these conclusions from. And, that is your opinion. You should well understand how silly it is for one to force others to subscribe to his beliefs simply because.

The italicized, it grants YOU the right to cut off YOUR arm so long as YOU wish to. Someone else doing it for you is simply acting on YOUR behalf, as YOU requested, following YOUR explicit instruction. Actually, ill or not, you should have that right, depending..

Logicboy03: The atheist group had to compromise. They could have won the court case but would have spent more money fighting it. This doesnt mean that the future generation cant still sue

Yeah, they're simply being practical. Not judging them per say, but it still disgusts me that the commandments (or anything similar) are there. They really shouldn't be.

Alfa Seltzer: Maybe Obadiah has passed some of his stuff to you because I have no other way of explaining how these words spew from your keyboard.

Me yoruba? Me youth? Me just moved? Me in the states? I don't even know where to begin. Are you sure you are not confusing me with someone else?

Why would anyone go near what obadiah touches? I refer to this, but perhaps he of many IDs is not responsible in this case. You've been around long enough to tell the problem of evil is not enough to convince committed sheeple, and the writing style is a little different. Then again...

Nah, it's probably you.

Alfa Seltzer: Not all risks are necessary. And even less risks which results will be detrimental to humanity.

You've not shown how this is detrimental to humanity, if there is a way of achieving it that is impervious to abuse, ie, so the bolded is moot.


If these are your arguments then;

Alfa Seltzer: On the philosophical side, what does euthanasia say about us humans? Have we reached the limit of our medical progress? Do we abandon and kill people instead of trying harder to find a cure for their illnesses?

And who says this is the what's happening? Abandoning people and killing them? Killing them? Yes. Murder? Definitely not. That's a salient distinction.

What exactly does philosophy have to do with this per say anyhow? It's an issue of individual rights, that's also important 'philosophically', no?

Alfa Seltzer: You might say that there is no cure. But a lot of curable diseases today had no cure a few years or decades ago.

And the whole point is to put rigorous checks in place to make sure it's only applied in cases in which the patients involved have their full mental capacities and virtually no chance of survival.

Alfa Seltzer: Why should countries invest billions into medical research if they could just euthanise the incurable?

And I'm not sure how you make this leap. Why in the world does legalizing euthenasia or (assisted suicide, better term which I would use) lead to less investment in medical research? That would be silly, what of future generations, or even cases of those similarly inflicted but who choose to fight on despite their poor prognosis?

Alfa Seltzer: For me personally, I think it is very bad for the individual suffering but legally killing him is very bad for mankind as a whole. Should we render our future generations hopeless in the face of diseases because we want to end the suffering of a few people? Are the interests of these few bigger than the interest of future generations?

Remember that no human suffering in this world has ever been in vain. Our ancestors had to suffer a lot of incurable sicknesses so that we have the immunity we have today to survive. Our sicknesses today are providing immunity to our offsprings. That is how nature works. If we start killing off sick people, we ultimately harm ourselves.

And what of organ failures and such? What exactly is to be learned in these situations? And a patient that is dying is supposed to pass on his already failed genes? If his genes were any good or resistant, he wouldn't be dying now, would he? Also, are the patients now required to submit, against their will, to experimentation? (If you argue that abortion is an issue of the woman's right to do what she wants to do with her body (which is a valid argument as well imo), can you see how weak/hypocritical this stance is?)


So far, all I've read (granted I've not read the whole thread) is subjective, you simply don't like it. Your opinion does not override the rights of the individuals involved, at least I would hope not. I need not point out why, I hope (as well). It's not your life, not your decision to end it or not.

edits: nothing major, I think

Alfa Seltzer: I'm not sure I understand your distinction between vegetative state people wishing to die and people in pain wishing to die. For me, they all fall under euthanasia as they are all people looking for other people to kill them.

I do not agree that a burden placed on the family of extremely sick people is greater than the burden placed on the family of extremely lazy ones. Infact, for the sake of humanity, extremely lazy people should be euthanised. But that's another debate.

There may be theoritical ways of avoiding the pitfalls but in practice, once the pandora box opens and the cat is out of the bag, the system would be abused. That's human. There is no human system that is immune to abuse. The real question then becomes, "is it worth it?".

Like you say, everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is subject to abuse. Risks are necessary and unavoidable. Obviously, in the 3rd world it's not worth it. But I wouldn't say the same for some of the west (and some of the far east maybe). There's no excuse in some regions.

Alfa Seltzer: What virus got that idea into your head. DOG forbid!

You sure. I could have sworn you became a yoruba youth that just moved to the states...

davidylan: you are missing a third option, perhaps you just arent too smart to get the point? Or the 4th option... that you are too dishonest, too blind and too wedded to dogma to see an alternate point of view?

What are you doing?

M I B :
MODs please i dont if this is posted in the right section, if not please help me out

I don't think you did, but the results have been hilarious regardless.

End times tingz..

Black man don suffer..

Alfa Seltzer: After reading this comment two days ago, I decided that I must be too tired to even understand a christian. So I decided to sleep over it. Yesterday, I read it again and it still made no sense. So I went to bed early last night to get enough sleep. I have read it again this morning and now I am sure that it wasn't me. Trying to understand a christian is an exercise in futility.

He simply missed your point completely. Perhaps you still give them too much credit.

You're now yoruba?

All this take about consciousness as if it were something magical. Is software SPIRIT?

musKeeto: @weigraf: long time.

How cold can one be? He's not even given a cursory hello. Makes me sad....

obadiah777: WHAT OF SODOM ?

Wasn't it nuked?

DAVID!!!!

















How you've been brah? It's been a while. I don't feel d love from u no more. Na so life b?

Let's see, you'll suddenly have more important than spreading rabies to do..

striktlymi: You are now taken the argument to another level...

We set out to prove whether or not Atheism as practiced by some is backed up by faith or not...

In order to prove this, we needed to know what faith is...muskeeto gave us some brilliant definitions of faith...

Next we needed to demonstrate that some Atheists make claims of their own...

The next stop is to show that the claims they have made cannot be proven e.g not backed by scientific evidence...

Ones we are able to show all the above then what we have set out to prove is proven...QED!!!


And that was what I demonstrated with my little dance.

Disingenuous drivel you still peddle.

I ask you again, do you require faith to state there's no santa?

obadiah777: THOSE WHO WERE SUPPOSING IT WOULD HAPPEN BACK THEN DID NOT KNOW WHAT THEY WERE SAYING BECAUSE THE SCRIPTURES WERE SEALED AND SECONDLY THE NUKES PREDICTED TO BE USED IN THE BIBLE HAD NOT BEEN MADE YET. NOW THE NUKES ARE MADE AND ARE READY TO BE DEPLOYED.

WHAT OF SODOM?

obadiah777: YEAH KEEP YOUR TIME TRAVELLING MACHINE. ITS ABOUT TO GET NUKED IN ARMAGEDDON

ARMAGEDDON HAS SUPPOSEDLY BEEN ABOUT TO TAKE PLACE FOR ROUGHLY 2000 YEARS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE ANY TIME SOON. DON'T WORRY, IF YOU'RE CORRECT YOU'LL AT LEAST GET TO GLOAT. BUT I DO RECOMMEND NOT TAKING ANY GAMBLES ON THAT PREDICTION.

DELICIOUS ANCESTORS

https://www.cometonigeria.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/fish-pepper-soup.jpg