AgentOfAllah:


FOLYKAZE Logic 101

Formal statement: Irrelevant opinions may be resorted to when establishing a logical truth.

Structure: {insert irrelevant opinion}, {insert consequential logical truth}

EXAMPLE 1: {To the Yoruba spiritualists, every individual is a god}, {so this creates flaws in the atheist arguments}.
EXAMPLE 2: {To me, FOLYKAZE is a pathological mo.ron}, {so this creates flaws in whatever defence he may invoke to proved me wrong}

I'm sure you can think of other examples.

That is what religion does....retards minds on every level...

AgentOfAllah:


FOLYKAZE Logic 101

Formal statement: Irrelevant opinions may be resorted to when establishing a logical truth.

Structure: {insert irrelevant opinion}, {insert consequential logical truth}

EXAMPLE 1: {To the Yoruba spiritualists, every individual is a god}, {so this creates flaws in the atheist arguments}.
EXAMPLE 2: {To me, FOLYKAZE is a pathological mo.ron}, {so this creates flaws in whatever defence he may invoke to proved me wrong}

I'm sure you can think of other examples.

Lol

I still dont get it.

Irrelevant opinion; I suppose not take it on with you any longer.

Is every individual not a god in yoruba spirituality?

AgentOfAllah, analyze FOLYKAZE's comments and you'll notice he's trolling....he's been trolling from the start....take a good look

I still dont get it.

Irrelevant opinion; I suppose not take it on with you any longer.

He "doesn't get it", and yet considers your rebuttal an "irrelevant opinion"?

FOLYKAZE:


Lol

I still dont get it.

Irrelevant opinion; I suppose not take it on with you any longer.

Is every individual not a god in yoruba spirituality?

Okay, let me bring it down a notch, hoping you might get it this time.

Answer me this, why is the opinion of the Yoruba spiritualist relevant to the atheist argument?

Before you proceed, you may assume that the atheist argument is that there is no evidence for god's existence. So what I really need you to do is to show me why this argument is flawed because some Yoruba spiritualist believes everybody is god.

For your argument to be sound, you must first show that the Yoruba spiritualist's definition of god is, in fact, THE acceptable definition of god.

Thanks and good luck.

davien:
AgentOfAllah, analyze FOLYKAZE's comments and you'll notice he's trolling....he's been trolling from the start....take a good look
He "doesn't get it", and yet considers your rebuttal an "irrelevant opinion"?

Yawn.

FOLYKAZE:


Yawn.

Indifferent...

davien:
AgentOfAllah, analyze FOLYKAZE's comments and you'll notice he's trolling....he's been trolling from the start....take a good look
He "doesn't get it", and yet considers your rebuttal an "irrelevant opinion"?

His dim wittedness is uncannily analogous to that of a troll.

AgentOfAllah:


His dim wittedness is uncannily analogous to that of a troll.

I think he really is one...he disregards rebuttals that clearly refuted his claim with passive replies like "I don't get it"..."irrelevant"..
He has created his own mental world where everyone that doesn't agree with him has been wrong from the start....

AgentOfAllah:


Okay, let me bring it down a notch, hoping you might get it this time.

Answer me this, why is the opinion of the Yoruba spiritualist relevant to the atheist argument?

Before you proceed, you may assume that the atheist argument is that there is no evidence for god's existence. So what I really need you to do is to show me why this argument is flawed because some Yoruba spiritualist believes everybody is god.

For your argument to be sound, you must first show that the Yoruba spiritualist's definition of god is, in fact, THE acceptable definition of god.

Thanks and good luck.

Why didnt you come with thus early before? You were just insulting. . . .too bad.

Atheism is all aboutexistence of god. However, god in atheism is not definitive with regard to a/some specific religion or spirituality. So we can assume that God in atheism cut across all religion and spirituality which Yoruba spirituality is not excluded because it does recognise existence of god too. So I very much think Yoruba spirituality is relevant in this dicussion.

So here is the flaw. A Yoruba man would call on his Eleda (creator) which is Ori, an orisha which is a god in english. Ori is a metaphysical concept important to Yoruba spirituality and way of life. It is the reflective spark of human consciousness embedded into the human essence, and therefore is often personified as an Orisha in its own right. So in Yoruba, a living being is a god.

And when atheist says god is not existing, in Yoruba perspective, this mean atheism is holding the believe that Man is not existing.

I hope you get this?

AgentOfAllah:


His dim wittedness is uncannily analogous to that of a troll.

If all you could do is call me name and address me in an insultive manner, I will have no option than to ignore your tantrum. We might disagree on things but that does not call for insults pls

FOLYKAZE:


Atheism is all aboutexistence of god. However, god in atheism is not definitive with regard to a/some specific religion or spirituality. So we can assume that God in atheism cut across all religion and spirituality which Yoruba spirituality is not excluded because it does recognise existence of god too. So I very much think Yoruba spirituality is relevant in this dicussion.

This is without doubt, up there with the most idiotic arguments - if it can be called that - I have seen in my entire life. Can you define atheism?

AgentOfAllah:


This is without doubt, up there with the most idiotic arguments - if it can be called that - I have seen in my entire life. Can you define atheism?

I am sorry, since you cant do without insult I will have to get my hand doing something better.

Cheers

FOLYKAZE:


I am sorry, since you cant do without insult I will have to get my hand doing something better.

Cheers

I'm very sorry you think I'm insulting you. I made what I believed -still believe - to be a very fair assessment of your argument. It's stupid because you clearly mistook atheism for pantheism even when I gave you the exact definition of atheism from which your argument should proceed.

AgentOfAllah:


I'm very sorry you think I'm insulting you. I made what I believed -still believe - to be a very fair assessment of your argument. It's stupid because you clearly mistook atheism for pantheism even when I gave you the exact definition of atheism from which your argument should proceed.

Now do you believe he's a troll...

davien:
Now do you believe he's a troll...

Yep

AgentOfAllah:


I'm very sorry you think I'm insulting you. I made what I believed -still believe - to be a very fair assessment of your argument. It's stupid because you clearly mistook atheism for pantheism even when I gave you the exact definition of atheism from which your argument should proceed.

You aint mature enough pls if you cant do away with vulgar words and been abusive esp when you disagree with others.

1. Did I tell you I dont know what atheism is?

2. Can you show me how I mistook atheism as pantheism?

3. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existnce of god.

To a Yoruba spiritualist, a conscious being is a god.

A case that is noticeable in many world religion, man is considered severally to be a deity.

So an atheist telling those religion practitioner that god does not exist is equivalently saying man does not exist. The flaws on atheism here lies on definition of god. When god is defined as a conscious being or man, it is then not possible to deny the existence of man.

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God/gods but the question is how do they define god?

God is super being, atheist could disbelieve in this god.

God is an influencial person, atheist, atheist disbelieving in the exist of this God is quite insane. How could someone disbelieve in the existence of god (defined as influencial person)?

So my point remain that atheism makes sense until god is defined as something which existential evidence cannot be dismissed. Ex, in a culture where snake is deified, would an atheist disbelieve in existence of deity (snake)?


I have explained myself enough

FOLYKAZE:


You aint mature enough pls if you cant do away with vulgar words and been abusive esp when you disagree with others.

1. Did I tell you I dont know what atheism is?

2. Can you show me how I mistook atheism as pantheism?

3. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existnce of god.

To a Yoruba spiritualist, a conscious being is a god.

A case that is noticeable in many world religion, man is considered severally to be a deity.

So an atheist telling those religion practitioner that god does not exist is equivalently saying man does not exist. The flaws on atheism here lies on definition of god. When god is defined as a conscious being or man, it is then not possible to deny the existence of man.

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God/gods but the question is how do they define god?

God is super being, atheist could disbelieve in this god.

God is an influencial person, atheist, atheist disbelieving in the exist of this God is quite insane. How could someone disbelieve in the existence of god (defined as influencial person)?

So my point remain that atheism makes sense until god is defined as something which existential evidence cannot be dismissed. Ex, in a culture where snake is deified, would an atheist disbelieve in existence of deity (snake)?


I have explained myself enough

Your whole argument is predicated on an informal fallacy known as shifting the goalpost, and I'll show you how.

To begin, let's take a random subset of letters from the English alphabet. For the sake of this discourse, I'm using the first letters of my moniker, yours and Davien's. A, F and D. Now, we may string these letters into any abstract arrangement to form a word, with the only criterion being that the new word is pronounceable.

I choose DAF. I wish now, to make a claim about DAF's material attribute, and my claim is that DAF exists.

Naturally, you must be befuddled by now. "Has AgentOfAllah gone mad?", you may begin to ask. But of course not, silly. All rats are DAF, thus DAF exists.
What have I done? I have merely created a synonym for rats; a superfluous, pointless word. No doubt, easy to pronounce, but an ugly sounding coinage whose only practical application is to demonstrate the pointlessness of your argument to you. Yet, for all its pointlessness, DAF now exists as an abstract placeholder for a material entity (rats).

How then does this relate to your argument? Your Yoruba spiritualist friends, by defining the abstract arrangement of three letters (god) in such a way that it can only be seen as a synonym for mankind/human makes it a superfluous coinage that serves no additional purpose but to add more redundancy to a concept that already has an uncountable number of representations in the vast sea of existing words.

Of course, if you define 'god' so that it becomes just another synonym for man, nobody can reject the existence of god according to such a definition.

I wrote everything above to make the following point, so let's string things up into a nice coherent conclusion:

Atheism, is not a rejection of a specific abstract arrangement of letters or any of its attendant definitions, wishful or real, rather, it is the rejection of a specific concept or idea, which is the existence of a supernatural being, often abstractised using the colloquial placeholder; god.


If it makes you feel any better, I took the liberty to search if the same word exists in other languages and as it turns out, in Norwegian, good = god. Now, it will take an extremely persuasive argument to convince even the most pertinacious atheist that dogs can't be god!! I hope you feel god now?

AgentOfAllah:


Your whole argument is predicated on an informal fallacy known as shifting the goalpost, and I'll show you how.

To begin, let's take a random subset of letters from the English alphabet. For the sake of this discourse, I'm using the first letters of my moniker, yours and Davien's. A, F and D. Now, we may string these letters into any abstract arrangement to form a word, with the only criterion being that the new word is pronounceable.

I choose DAF. I wish now, to make a claim about DAF's material attribute, and my claim is that DAF exists.

Naturally, you must be befuddled by now. "Has AgentOfAllah gone mad?", you may begin to ask. But of course not, silly. All rats are DAF, thus DAF exists.
What have I done? I have merely created a synonym for rats; a superfluous, pointless word. No doubt, easy to pronounce, but an ugly sounding coinage whose only practical application is to demonstrate the pointlessness of your argument to you. Yet, for all its pointlessness, DAF now exists as an abstract placeholder for a material entity (rats).

How then does this relate to your argument? Your Yoruba spiritualist friends, by defining the abstract arrangement of three letters (god) in such a way that it can only be seen as a synonym for mankind/human makes it a superfluous coinage that serves no additional purpose but to add more redundancy to a concept that already has an uncountable number of representations in the vast sea of existing words.

Of course, if you define 'god' so that it becomes just another synonym for man, nobody can reject the existence of god according to such a definition.

I wrote everything above to make the following point, so let's string things up into a nice coherent conclusion:

Atheism, is not a rejection of a specific abstract arrangement of letters or any of its attendant definitions, wishful or real, rather, it is the rejection of a specific concept or idea, which is the existence of a supernatural being, often abstractised using the colloquial placeholder; god.


If it makes you feel any better, I took the liberty to search if the same word exists in other languages and as it turns out, in Norwegian, good = god. Now, it will take an extremely persuasive argument to convince even the most pertinacious atheist that dogs can't be god!! I hope you feel god now?

my dear friend, i have observed with interest that all you do is to try and find fault in other people's points and not that i agree with your points but you never advance points to prove that God does not exist on your own without reference to anybody's defence of his / her faith.

atheists never to present present or have anything to say in proving that God does not exist only to attack the proof that he exists. Poor souls....

folaski:
atheists never to present present or have anything to say in proving that God does not exist only to attack the proof that he exists. Poor souls....

That's funny. I thought that's how rebuttals work

folaski:
atheists never to present present or have anything to say in proving that God does not exist only to attack the proof that he exists. Poor souls....

There is an invisible pink unicorn, and it created us. Prove that there is no invisible pink unicorn without attacking my assertion that there is such a being.

folaski:




my dear friend, i have observed with interest that all you do is to try and find fault in other people's points

My dear friend, If I try to find faults in other people's points, maybe it is because I believe that points are so easy to make that they shouldn't be faulty.

and not that i agree with your points but you never advance points to prove that God does not exist on your own without reference to anybody's defence of his / her faith.

I needn't prove the non-existence of god any more than you need to prove the non-existence of a talking cow that flies. We just take it as a matter fact. Do a little reading on BURDEN OF PROOF and I'm sure you'll find that it is on the proponent of an argument, not the skeptic.

folaski:




my dear friend, i have observed with interest that all you do is to try and find fault in other people's points and not that i agree with your points but you never advance points to prove that God does not exist on your own without reference to anybody's defence of his / her faith.

That's because of the way "god" is placed on a tenet of faith.....faith needs no disprove...because it is an admission of lack of evidence and thus it cannot be substantiated and is indistinguishable from make-believe.

AgentOfAllah:


My dear friend, If I try to find faults in other people's points, maybe it is because I believe that points are so easy to make that they shouldn't be faulty.



I needn't prove the non-existence of god any more than you need to prove the non-existence of a talking cow that flies. We just take it as a matter fact. Do a little reading on BURDEN OF PROOF and I'm sure you'll find that it is on the proponent of an argument, not the skeptic.

pls whats your guiding principle in life? no harm intended pls

davien:
That's because of the way "god" is placed on a tenet of faith.....faith needs no disprove...because it is an admission of lack of evidence and thus it cannot be substantiated and is indistinguishable from make-believe.

pls whats your guiding principle in life? no harm intended pls

folaski:



pls whats your guiding principle in life? no harm intended pls

I make a clear realization that my actions have benefits and/or consequences,and so to maintain my wellbeing,I need to try to minimize or cease unnecessary harm and promote general health and happiness...
what's yours?

@ShadyAgentOfAllah

If I may butt-in unsolicited, I think this would be much easier if you truly accepted this

AgentOfAllah:


FOLYKAZE is a pathological Mo.ron.

instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt. You'd receive a lot less

FOLYKAZE:

I dont understand your point.

FOLYKAZE:

I still dont get it.

When you post like this

AgentOfAllah:

If it makes you feel any better, I took the liberty to search if the same word exists in other languages and as it turns out, in Norwegian, good = god. Now, it will take an extremely persuasive argument to convince even the most pertinacious atheist that dogs can't be god!! I hope you feel god now?

Even I am having a hard time following at times [s](though admittedly I am, as usual, rather high. Even at this time of day...)[/s]. Not that I'm some sort of genius, but next to folly, well...

And no, he isn't trolling. Perhaps sadly, he genuinely believes what he posts....

folaski:
atheists never to present present or have anything to say in proving that God does not exist only to attack the proof that he exists. Poor souls....

Lol... U sure say u go school? Or is religion making u plain silly?

folaski:


pls whats your guiding principle in life? no harm intended pls

What Davien said. Utilitarianism with a selfish tail end refined by my platinum rule; live and let live.

wiegraf:
@ShadyAgentOfAllah

Why do you think I'm shady?

If I may butt-in unsolicited, I think this would be much easier if you truly accepted this.

instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt. You'd receive a lot less

I'm used to unsolicited butts...not that I mind the butts
I have since accepted his predicament. I spent too much time in denial.

Even I am having a hard time following at times [s](though admittedly I am, as usual, rather high. Even at this time of day...)[/s]. Not that I'm some sort of genius, but next to folly, well...

My bad for communicating what I thought was a brilliant pun badly. It was basically a play on the word "god" (good in Norwegian), with the idea that atheists don't believe in god.

And no, he isn't trolling. Perhaps sadly, he genuinely believes what he posts....

He may not have committed to trolling, that doesn't make him any less a troll though. As I noted earlier, the dim wittedness is unmistakably troll-like.

AgentOfAllah:
Why do you think I'm shady?

It was the word 'pertinacious' that gave you away. No true agent of allah has had me reach for a dictionary

Edit*Oh wow. Just noticed I can't even type a.llah, ie all lower case. Let's see. jesus. allah. lol. So I can do that for jesus but not allah. muslims and their ediocy... special rules for only special them, it beggars belief....

AgentOfAllah:

My bad for communicating what I thought was a brilliant pun badly. It was basically a play on the word "god" (good in Norwegian), with the idea that atheists don't believe in god.

Indeed, one could warrant that humanistic atheists in Norway believe man's godness.

It was a god-level pun (<-better than these silly attempts), I was just emphasizing that even if he did decipher it, the point's lost on him.

BTW, in northern 9ja at some time or the other DAFS referred to the females of our species that were stacked like DAF trucks. Why do you believe rats have big butts?

AgentOfAllah:

He may not have committed to trolling, that doesn't make him any less a troll though. As I noted earlier, the dim wittedness is unmistakably troll-like.

But true masters of the arts would be disappointed. They would like to believe that their (perceived) dim wittedness is a hell of a lot more subtle. That takes true skill and intelligence to pull off

I've already been through this with Folly. He's a confirmed troll.