Lacking belief.

Good

Lacking belief in God or belief in no God.

Bélla3: madam! Kedu? Hw u dy?

Odinma. Longest time

'A' prefix to describe 'without','gnostic' greek word to describe 'knowledge'. Both words,mixed to describe 'lack of knowledge'. A person with No knowledge is an agnostic (we are n infants also are). The word 'view' is the study(seeing or outlook) aspect to derive a conclusion,actually used to give a manner of consideration to the disbelieve concept of gods(and now,this is agnosticism). Agnosticism is the belief of an (informed) agnostic(grown-ups),that is,finding a reason to conclude. Agnostic is a person without the knowledge of something(meaning frm d word's root),whether informed or not. That is y I descrided infants as weak agnostic/weak believer,they could easy opt.

Victor,
I catch ur drift. But u r stretching it, seriously.
Agnostics hv a belief system dt it is improbably 2 knw any god.

Children born tabular rasa. Nothing. Clean slate. They r neutral. Dts d point.

Bobbysworld28: Ooman I luv intelligent arguments but on this one u hv bn pinned. U said children r born without belief. Belief in wht? In God? Can I dare say they hv also bn born without belief in atheism?
U mention they hv reflexes like sucking. Dts untrue. They can't evn suck because there is no pre knowledge abt sucking until they r taught by putting it in their mouth.
Ur argument is very hollow in dis regard. Kindly admit u hv bn roundly defeated.
Cheers

^^^

The worst low is that he does not know that sucking of breast by infant is instinctive (purely by instinct).

On what Basis of rationality can one really be able to extract knowledge from such a one if one was to engage him?


smh.

Truthislight, I hv a baby & believe me sucking isn't instinctive. Hv u forgotten dt in d womb they only ate through d umblical cord? Hw then can they knw instinctively dt feeding is from d mouth upon exit 4rm d womb? Let ur wife hv a baby, then u come back & talk.
I'm a father & I've observed this. Instinct kicks in after u put it in d first time & then d baby realises there is a new mode of feeding.
I believe ur question is apt 4 u

Bobbysworld28: Truthislight, I hv a baby & believe me sucking isn't instinctive. Hv u forgotten dt in d womb they only ate through d umblical cord? Hw then can they knw instinctively dt feeding is from d mouth upon exit 4rm d womb? Let ur wife hv a baby, then u come back & talk.
I'm a father & I've observed this. Instinct kicks in after u put it in d first time & then d baby realises there is a new mode of feeding.
I believe ur question is apt 4 u

What!

I said sucking is instinctive and you said that ^?

After your wife puts the brea.st in the babies mouth, i belief she subsequent taught the baby to "suck"!

Smh.

Yes I said it. Sue me.
When my baby was born she didn't suck because no milk came out. We used glucose & water d first day. 2nd day & she of course didn't suck until d milk got into her mouth. Then she sucked.
Validate ur claim little boy

Bobbysworld28: Ooman I luv intelligent arguments but on this one u hv bn pinned. U said children r born without belief. Belief in wht? In God? [size=15pt]Can I dare say they hv also bn born without belief in atheism?[/size]
U mention they hv reflexes like sucking. Dts untrue. They can't evn suck because there is no pre knowledge abt sucking until they r taught by putting it in their mouth.
Ur argument is very hollow in dis regard. Kindly admit u hv bn roundly defeated.
Cheers

well, who is talking about "knowledge" to suck, am talking about instinctive behaviors. Infancy lasts from birth until age two. Infant reflexes concern finding the nipple: suckling can occur minutes after birth, and the rooting reflex is a tactile clue for the infant to turn its head toward a touch. During the first year the infant passes through a series of developmental stages.
Infant reflex is a scientifically and clinically proven fact. There is no going back on that because you disagree with it.

@bold: you got that 100% wrong, atheism is not a belief but lack of belief. Children are born with lack of belief so can be regarded as atheists, i have said this time without number. Your problem seem to be lack of understanding of what atheism is.

Bobbysworld28: Yes I said it. Sue me.
When my baby was born she didn't suck because no milk came out. We used glucose & water d first day. 2nd day & she of course didn't suck until d milk got into her mouth. Then she sucked.
Validate ur claim little boy

what did you expect her to suck if no milk came out. Since suckling is instinctive, if it doesnt come with reward, another source would normally be found. Babies generally would resort to crying.

Bobbysworld28: Truthislight, I hv a baby & believe me sucking isn't instinctive. Hv u forgotten dt in d womb they only ate through d umblical cord? Hw then can they knw instinctively dt feeding is from d mouth upon exit 4rm d womb? Let ur wife hv a baby, then u come back & talk.
I'm a father & I've observed this. Instinct kicks in after u put it in d first time & then d baby realises there is a new mode of feeding.
I believe ur question is apt 4 u

well, if you disagree with instinctive behavior, how then do you explain suckling in animals, feeding in worms and blood suckling in insects.
Animal (including human babies included) behaviors are generally instinctive, adult humans excluded because of presence of consciousness.

Bobbysworld28:
Children born tabular rasa. Nothing. Clean slate. They r neutral. Dts d point.

Bravo,u have just comprehended,but u still uncomprehending ur comprehension. ^(tabular rasa,clean stale to supernatural facts,it's unknown) is how we are to the supernatural facts,and that's what an agnostic signifies.

Bobbysworld28,I leave u to the ^,make of it whatever u wish. Lastly,all your opinions are wrong,just open ur mind towards all that have been said,without ur vanity,and u will c ooman,truthislight n I are right. Good luck.

Victor, d essence of my talk is clarity & enlightenment.
If d goal of ur pursuit is to be right & nt letting others partake by varrying them along, then sorry.
I can be wrong & u could be wrong so let us get to a meeting point.
4rm ur point, neutrality is agnostocism. I still don't agree


atheism
The rejection of the belief in God. Some atheists have held that there is nothing in the world that requires a God in order to be explained. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism, which holds that we can have knowledge neither of the existence nor of the nonexistence of God.

Both stands show dt d subject comes to a conclusion over time which isn't true for babies. Dts my submission

Bobbysworld28: Victor, d essence of my talk is clarity & enlightenment.
If d goal of ur pursuit is to be right & nt letting others partake by varrying them along, then sorry.
I can be wrong & u could be wrong so let us get to a meeting point.
4rm ur point, neutrality is agnostocism. I still don't agree


atheism
The rejection of the belief in God. Some atheists have held that there is nothing in the world that requires a God in order to be explained. Atheism is not the same as agnosticism, which holds that we can have knowledge neither of the existence nor of the nonexistence of God.

Both stands show dt d subject comes to a conclusion over time which isn't true for babies. Dts my submission

well, your submission about atheism is wrong.

atheism equals lack of beliefs, babies are born with lack of beliefs. Hence, babies are born as atheists.

Ok,
I give up. All animals r atheists. Same 4 all inanimate objects.
Happy now?

Bobbysworld28: Ok,
I give up. All animals r atheists. Same 4 all inanimate objects.
Happy now?

When that includes all new born human babies, yes I will be happy.

ooman:

When that includes all new born human babies, yes I will be happy.

Lol!!!...you don't give up!

striktlymi:

Lol!!!...you don't give up!

Not when people reject logics and facts.!

ooman back from the dead...... abi Lazarus!

seyibrown: ooman back from the dead...... abi Lazarus!

Na striktlymi wake am up

ooman:

Na striktlymi wake am up

ooman is a better user id than homosapiens in my opinion

striktlymi:

ooman is a better user id than homosapiens in my opinion

Why?

ooman:

Why?

It reminds me of the frailty of man and our search for meaning in this our lowly existence...the user id is kinda philosophical to me.

striktlymi:

It reminds me of the frailty of man and our search for meaning in this our lowly existence...the user id is kinda philosophical to me.

You mean ooman philosophical than homosapiens? Homosapiens means wise man, do you know what ooman means? How is that philosophical to you?

ooman:

You mean ooman philosophical than homosapiens? Homosapiens means wise man, do you know what ooman means? How is that philosophical to you?

First question answered! This post irrelevant to the first!

striktlymi:

First question answered! This post irrelevant to the first!

Once again the question is-why do you think ooman is philosophical than homosapiens?

ooman:

Once again the question is-why do you think ooman is philosophical than homosapiens?

...Once again, the answer has been given:

striktlymi:

It reminds me of the frailty of man and our search for meaning in this our lowly existence...the user id is kinda philosophical to me.

striktlymi:

...Once again, the answer has been given:

Anyway, I assure you that you will not prefer ooman again when I tell you what it means. Do you want to know? Can you guess?

ooman:

Anyway, I assure you that you will not prefer ooman again when I tell you what it means. Do you want to know? Can you guess?

You might not know this but 'ooman' can mean 'woman'...some have postulated (though in a figurative sense) that woman can mean Woe Onto MAN!!!

This is the meaning I make of this as I suggested previously, it is my own personal viewpoint on the matter...a man of woe is to me a man of frailty and that user id reminds me of this...

What am I doing again...
You seem to have a way of letting me say my personal ish...

#If ur meaning is vulgar, keep it!

striktlymi:

You might not know this but 'ooman' can mean 'woman'...some have postulated (though in a figurative sense) that woman can mean Woe Onto MAN!!!

This is the meaning I make of this as I suggested previously, it is my own personal viewpoint on the matter...a man of woe is to me a man of frailty and that user id reminds me of this...

What am I doing again...
You seem to have a way of letting me say my personal ish...
#If ur meaning is vulgar, keep it!

Well ooman is a parody of the xtian trinity and tripartite nature-body spirit and soul.

It means soul-not existing- 0
Spirit-not existing - 0
Body-existing- hence, man.

So we have 00man or ooman.

ooman:


Well ooman is a parody of the xtian trinity and tripartite nature-body spirit and soul.

It means soul-not existing- 0
Spirit-not existing - 0
Body-existing- hence, man.

So we have 00man or ooman.

Even in your own 'loose' meaning it makes sense for you to keep the name.

Bobbysworld28: Truthislight, I hv a baby & believe me sucking isn't instinctive. Hv u forgotten dt in d womb they only ate through d umblical cord? Hw then can they knw instinctively dt feeding is from d mouth upon exit 4rm d womb? Let ur wife hv a baby, then u come back & talk.
I'm a father & I've observed this. Instinct kicks in after u put it in d first time & then d baby realises there is a new mode of feeding.
I believe ur question is apt 4 u

Sucking is soooo instinctive. Does anyone teach the baby how to suck?