unphilaz:
i have observed some thread on nairaland and i have come across
"brilliant" post by atheist who have used sense to argue thier
points to which one will feel he has lost the argument.

but lately, i have come to realize that the reason they seem
successful in their argument is because of one thing, they
dont have a standard by which one is to judge them by.

for instance, Christians have the bible, Muslim have the koran and this
defines their identity, worldview and their standard which atheist have used either
mischievously or logically to present their facts.

This is very vague. It all depends on what the specific argument is about. Opinions and views of atheists vary just as much as that of theists. A christian for example will read Genesis and tell you the creation account was literal, some will say metaphoric, some will deduce that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, other accept the Big Bang, etc. So saying atheists have no 'standard' really doesn't make sense without being more specific.

now how can you present or argue with one who does not have a standard
but his/his mind which is a fluid commodity and with the help of words,
such a one can change his/her ideas to mean in the same breath from
what he/she has earlier stated.

That's the definition of goal post shifting and anyone who does that, atheist or not is being fallacious. If you're referring to being open-minded then there's nothing wrong with that. Changing your views after being presented with sufficient evidence/reasons to is preferable to being close-minded.

This, to me is the potent reason one should have at the back of his/her
mind when debating with athiest. Muslim have tried in thier bid to defend
thier belief using the koran and the hadith, and on the same two, they are
attacked with the same ferocity as they try to defend same. And this
also goes with the christian belief on the bible as well.

But on the athiest, this is another entirely different turf all together.
They use logic, fallacy etc to try and debunk the faith of others but when
you think you grasp it, and give a rebuttal, with your hand, it flows out like oil through
your fingers.

If you insist something is true and without fault, in this case, a book, then you should be able to defend it. Same goes for atheist insisting a certain stance is correct.

so next time, if you must debate them have this at the back of your mind,
you are debating a mind that does not have a standard on which to hold,
its so fluid like oil . Yeah there are good religious debaters who have matched
naira for naira to the athiest arsenal such as mranony etc.

Finally, this is in no way a defeatist post but a logical understanding
for how to address issues with an athiest no matter what.

There's no point in trying to paint atheists as 'goal-post shifters'. If you're good at arguing(logical) and can support your assertions with facts, then you're most likely to win an argument, unless of course you're debating a close-minded and intellectually dishonest fellow.

NumberOne2:


Hmmm, Experimentation, Observation are some of the foundations of Science. You are a scientist. You are far from being an Atheist. There is NO reality in Atheism.

How are you sure the perceived realities have not been modified?
Example, the movie MATRIX. They were all living their lives until they took the RED pill and saw reality.

So how can you rely on your eyes to show reality?
Example, some folks are colour blind and see RED as GREEN. So is it really GREEN or RED?

To a true Atheist, nothing is certain, even perceived realities.

It's true that nothing is 100% certain and very scientist know this. But you have to base your beliefs on the best available evidence and reject claims that are unsupported, impossible or implausible. Just because you're not 100% sure doesn't give you the license to make up stories.

The Bible and Koran are not supported by any evidence, contradict known facts, are internally self contradictory, and require cherry-picking and brainwashing for them to make any semblance of sense. Even if you think reality has been altered in some unseen way, that still justify believing in something that is self-refuting like Christianity (or Islam).

johnydon22:


Am not so sure you understand what atheism means, just add your own meaning and spin words around... stop trying too hard. . . this is not a debate.

it can never be a debate but expressing an opinion. A mind, some words on no standard is at best fluid.

unphilaz:
it can never be a debate but expressing an opinion. A mind, some words on no standard is at best fluid.

It's rather ironic that most religions are built on subjectivity(faith) in contrast to atheism that deals mainly with objectivity. Either you missed my last post of are clinging on to something we both know is wrong.

This is very vague. It all depends on what the specific argument is about. Opinions and views of atheists vary just as much as that of theists. A christian for example will read Genesis and tell you the creation account was literal, some will say metaphoric, some will deduce that the earth is 6000-10,000 years old, other accept the Big Bang, etc. So saying atheists have no 'standard' really doesn't make sense without being more specific.

Yea bible theist may differ and argue on the above but one thing they ALWAYS do is argue ON the bible. That is a standard even though you may consider it a "stupid book". Do nigerian lawyers go before a judge quoting and arguing from just their MINDS with each other? I dont think so, they sure have a standard which are written laws or lets say constitution. But what do athiest have as the basis on which the argue with themselves to agree to disagree? "anything" and "anywhere" but not a solid standard one can scrutinize for oneself. abi na lie i de talk.

That's the definition of goal post shifting and anyone who does that, atheist or not is being fallacious. If you're referring to being open-minded then there's nothing wrong with that. Changing your views after being presented with sufficient evidence/reasons to is preferable to being close-minded.

Lawyers are open minded not on just their whims and caprices that thier MIND can conjure up BUT as always on the CONSTITUTION. if lawyers were open-minded about something without need to fallback on the CONSTITUTION then what gives? chaos i guess.
Person Standard

Christian theist - "foolish" buybull (bible)
Muslim Theist - "foolish" cowran (koran)
nigerian lawyers - Nigerian constitution
Athiest -

If you insist something is true and without fault, in this case, a book, then you should be able to defend it. Same goes for atheist insisting a certain stance is correct.

But am not pointing out IF its true or false. What i intend by this post is We have the bible, Muslim have a koran, athiest have nothing

There's no point in trying to paint atheists as 'goal-post shifters'. If you're good at arguing(logical) and can support your assertions with facts, then you're most likely to win an argument, unless of course you're debating a close-minded and intellectually dishonest fellow.

Sure they are goal post shifters, because if the lawyer cannot do without the constitution, the driver without the car manual, then why should the athiest be different by having no standard to lay as his/her claim but his MIND and use of words as best known to him and then expect us to be logical by his/her standard?

unphilaz:

Yea bible theist may differ and argue on the above but one thing they ALWAYS do is argue ON the bible. That is a standard even though you may consider it a "stupid book". Do nigerian lawyers go before a judge quoting and arguing from just their MINDS with each other? I dont think so, they sure have a standard which are written laws or lets say constitution. But what do athiest have as the basis on which the argue with themselves to agree to disagree? "anything" and "anywhere" but not a solid standard one can scrutinize for oneself. abi na lie i de talk.

You still have not given a specific argument so your posts remain extremely vague. How exactly does any of this apply to say, an argument on god's existence, benefits of religion or authenticity of the bible? With your references to law and constitution, it is safe to assume you are talking about morality, so let's use that as an example; objective morality VS subjective morality.
Just a to be brief, compare sharia law to western democracy and make your conclusion.

Lawyers are open minded not on just their whims and caprices that thier MIND can conjure up BUT as always on the CONSTITUTION. if lawyers were open-minded about something without need to fallback on the CONSTITUTION then what gives? chaos i guess.
Person Standard
Christian theist - "foolish" buybull (bible)
Muslim Theist - "foolish" cowran (koran)
nigerian lawyers - Nigerian constitution
Athiest -
But am not pointing out IF its true or false. What i intend by this post is We have the bible, Muslim have a koran, athiest have nothing

You make the assumptions that atheists have some type of different law they abide by while in realiy everyone, regardless of religion, abides by the exact same law(at least in secular nations). Also, you should probably find out what open-mindedness really means.

Sure they are goal post shifters, because if the lawyer cannot do without the constitution, the driver without the car manual, then why should the athiest be different by having no standard to lay as his/her claim but his MIND and use of words as best known to him and then expect us to be logical by his/her standard?

You cannot accuse someone for being a 'goal-post shifter' when you cannot give a specific argument or scenario. In all honesty, your analogies with lawyers and drivers are very poor and impractical, especially without any context. Also, I will like to remind you that logic is objective(in such arguments) and there's nothing like someone's personal standard of logic.

with all apologies, to all you wrote,

DProDG:


You still have not given a specific argument so your posts remain extremely vague. How exactly does any of this apply to say, an argument on god's existence, benefits of religion or authenticity of the bible? With your references to law and constitution, it is safe to assume you are talking about morality, so let's use that as an example; objective morality VS subjective morality.
Just a to be brief, compare sharia law to western democracy and make your conclusion.


You make the assumptions that atheists have some type of different law they abide by while in realiy everyone, regardless of religion, abides by the exact same law(at least in secular nations). Also, you should probably find out what open-mindedness really means.



You cannot accuse someone for being a 'goal-post shifter' when you cannot give a specific argument or scenario. In all honesty, your analogies with lawyers and drivers are very poor and impractical, especially without any context. Also, I will like to remind you that logic is objective(in such arguments) and there's nothing like someone's personal standard of logic.

If you will still indulge me, please what is you standard as an athiest by which i can read/scrutinize/analyze about an athiest? We have allowed you to read/scrutinize/analyze the bible and you have used YOUR MIND and words to find it not worth following. Can you give me a standard to do same as you have done that is accepted by all athiest, to indulge my MIND and then allow me use words to declare my opinion just as you have to my bible!

unphilaz:
with all apologies, to all you wrote,

If you will still indulge me, please what is you standard as an athiest by which i can read/scrutinize/analyze about an athiest? We have allowed you to read/scrutinize/analyze the bible and you have used YOUR MIND and words to find it not worth following. Can you give me a standard to do same as you have done that is accepted by all athiest, to indulge my MIND and then allow me use words to declare my opinion just as you have to my bible!

Here is the thing, you are addressing atheism as if it is equally a religion. As we all know, it is a neutral stance. Atheists by definition do not assert or propose anything to be true but rather reject assertions by theists on the existence of a deity. While I would not use the word "standard", I do see your point and agree that there is nothing to scrutinize/analyze about an atheist; simply because he/she is not the one asserting and hence, has no burden of proof.

What I strongly disagree with however, is this...

now how can you present or argue with one who does not have a standard
but his/his mind which is a fluid commodity and with the help of words,
such a one can change his/her ideas to mean in the same breath from
what he/she has earlier stated.

The assumption that atheists are fallacious simply because they do not have the burden of proof. This is a blatant fallacy of equivocation. As I said previously, good arguments are logical and based on facts. Unless you can mention a specific argument where atheists are fond of doing such, your assumption is simply false.

DProDG:


Here is the thing, you are addressing atheism as if it is equally a religion.

No am addressing atheism as "a thing" that must have something to be a standard, just as chemist have chemistry books, physics have physics books, lawyers have constitution, journalist have documents.

As we all know, it is a neutral stance.

Now WHO are the we that have agreed/collectively/wholesomely that IT is a neutral stance which is documented as a standard?.

Atheists by definition do not assert or propose anything to be true but rather reject assertions by theists on the existence of a deity. While I would not use the word "standard", I do see your point and agree that there is nothing to scrutinize/analyze about an atheist; simply because he/she is not the one asserting and hence, has no burden of proof.

Nice to know that you are agreeing with my main opinion that athiesm has a baseless/nothing, simply nothing to hold on to but as the wind of THE MIND blows they flow like a paper over high mountains and even if it brings them to active lava. Its simply NOTHING!

Now you diss the ancient men who have made inventions that the modern scientific minds have failed to decipher such as the Pyramid of giza or stonehenge of how and what kind of "technology" was used to bring about this feat, yet some of this stupid ancient men of low life wrote some stupid books. Could it be that just as the MINDS of the modern age have failed/unable to understand such archaic and mysterious leftovers as Pyramid of giza will equally not have the capacity of the same MIND to understand the ancient writeup of vague men?

What I strongly disagree with however, is this...

Why should you disagree when you agree that athiesm have NOTHING as basis to hold.

now how can you present or argue with one who does not have a standard
but his/his mind which is a fluid commodity and with the help of words,
such a one can change his/her ideas to mean in the same breath from
what he/she has earlier stated.

The assumption that atheists are fallacious simply because they do not have the burden of proof. This is a blatant fallacy of equivocation. As I said previously, good arguments are logical and based on facts. Unless you can mention a specific argument where atheists are fond of doing such, your assumption is simply false.

How can you have burden of proof when its(athiesm) based on NOTHING. And if nothing, how can there be a good argument which is logical and based on NOTHING facts?

Please which is heavier/weightier NOTHING OR SOMETHING?

unphilaz:
No am addressing atheism as "a thing" that must have something to be a standard, just as chemist have chemistry books, physics have physics books, lawyers have constitution, journalist have documents.

Here again with the vague use of the word 'standard'. Chemists, physicists, lawyers, journalists and theists all have one thing in common; they all make claims and assertions. On the other hand, atheists do not. They only reject assertions of theists for whatsoever reasons.

Now WHO are the we that have agreed/collectively/wholesomely that IT is a neutral stance which is documented as a standard?.

It is by definition a neutral stance so unless you want to redefine words here, I do not see the problem.

Nice to know that you are agreeing with my main opinion that athiesm has a baseless/nothing, simply nothing to hold on to but as the wind of THE MIND blows they flow like a paper over high mountains and even if it brings them to active lava. Its simply NOTHING!

I do not see the point of me replying and repeating myself if you are simply going to read you preconceived notions into what I typed.

Now you diss the ancient men who have made inventions that the modern scientific minds have failed to decipher such as the Pyramid of giza or stonehenge of how and what kind of "technology" was used to bring about this feat, yet some of this stupid ancient men of low life wrote some stupid books. Could it be that just as the MINDS of the modern age have failed/unable to understand such archaic and mysterious leftovers as Pyramid of giza will equally not have the capacity of the same MIND to understand the ancient writeup of vague men?

What is this? ^^^

Why should you disagree when you agree that athiesm have NOTHING as basis to hold.

Again with a false equivocation -

-Atheists do no claim or assert anything.
-So atheism has no basis.
-Therefore atheists move goal posts.

I hope I am not expected to further explain the fault in your logic.

How can you have burden of proof when its(athiesm) based on NOTHING. And if nothing, how can there be a good argument which is logical and based on NOTHING facts?
Please which is heavier/weightier NOTHING OR SOMETHING?

Atheism is the rejection of theist propositions(400th time saying this now). The mere fact atheists do not assert anything makes it impossible for them to shift goal posts. All one has to do is analyse the propositions by theists logically and ensure they are supported by objectively verifiable facts.

For the 3rd/4th time, give ONE example of an argument where atheists can only get by by goal post shifting if you are going to mention me again.

DProDG:


Here again with the vague [/b]use of the word 'standard'. Chemists, physicists, lawyers, journalists and theists all have one thing in common; they all make claims and assertions. On the other hand, atheists do not. They only [b]reject assertions of theists for whatsoever reasons.

Why wont it be vague/empty when you have and are guided by NOTHING/HOLLOWness? why must ONLY athiest be the ones doing the REJECTING and have NOTHING for others to lay claim against them? Oh athiest have a "superior/inferior" attidtude becos of thier NOTHINGNESS I guess?

It is by definition a neutral stance so unless you want to redefine words here, I do not see the problem.

My question is still WHO/WHAT defined it and according to what standard, by what authority, by which empirical analysis was that definition accepted?

I do not see the point of me replying and repeating myself if you are simply going to read you preconceived notions into what I typed.

Ok this is what you and all athiest, have agreed, Athiest have NOTHING - no standard!

What is this? ^^^

Do you believe in Pyramid of Giza? Do you believe NOTHING caused this to occur?

Again with a false equivocation -

-Atheists do no claim or assert anything.
-So atheism has no basis.
-Therefore atheists move goal posts.

I hope I am not expected to further explain the fault in your logic.

Take this instead to the cleaners

- Athiest have/are NOTHING
- They can stand for ANYTHING as long as their MIND feels like accepting it
- they have no standard
- Therefore they have the right to change the goalpost as often as it suits them.

unphilaz:
Why wont it be vague/empty when you have and are guided by NOTHING/HOLLOWness? why must ONLY athiest be the ones doing the REJECTING and have NOTHING for others to lay claim against them? Oh athiest have a "superior/inferior" attidtude becos of thier NOTHINGNESS I guess?

My question is still WHO/WHAT defined it and according to what standard, by what authority, by which empirical analysis was that definition accepted?

Ok this is what you and all athiest, have agreed, Athiest have NOTHING - no standard!

Do you believe in Pyramid of Giza? Do you believe NOTHING caused this to occur?

Take this instead to the cleaners

- Athiest have/are NOTHING
- They can stand for ANYTHING as long as their MIND feels like accepting it
- they have no standard
- Therefore they have the right to change the goalpost as often as it suits them.

Almost nothing you've said here makes any sense whatsoever. It's simply impossible for me to respond to your individual statements without sarcasm just because of how stupid they are.

Now, what I have been asking since I first mentioned you...

[size=20pt]Give me an example of ONE argument where atheists cannot get by without moving goalposts.[/size]

My bet is that you're NOT gonna be able to provide one so it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about and everything this OP is false.

You know you don't have a valid point when you project your own position on your opponent....

Christian: I'm religious!? Well you're religious too!

Christian: I have faith!? Well you have faith too!

Christian: The bible is a fairy-tale!? Well science is a fairy tale too!


Creationists like vooks and OLAADEGBU are a classic example of this...

davien:
You know you don't have a valid point when you project your own position on your opponent....

Christian: I'm religious!? Well you're religious too!

Christian: I have faith!? Well you have faith too!

Christian: The bible is a fairy-tale!? Well science is a fairy tale too!


Creationists like vooks and OLAADEGBU are a classic example of this...

Wassup my negro,
Am still waiting for the Origins thread

vooks:


Wassup my negro,
Am still waiting for the Origins thread

Let's say I did make such a thread what would you present in it besides pseudoscience?

I'd reckon you'll also call davidylan to do his part too by directing me to answersingenesis...lol

davien:
Let's say I did make such a thread what would you DO?

I'd wipe the NL toilet floor with your moniker

vooks:

I'd wipe the NL toilet floor with your moniker

You are highly mouthed, we get that... its free of charge tho

I find this thread extremely hilarious and desperate. Cognitive dissonance will not let unphilaz and his fellow theists acknowledge that atheist arguments are much better than anything they can ever come up with so rather than just admit it, he decides to insist that there is something fundamentally wrong and fallacious with all atheist arguments, yet, cannot even defend it.

Still waiting for that* argument that no atheist can get past without moving goalposts. Don't feel rushed though, take your time, research and present it and put us to shame .

johnydon22:


You are highly mouthed, we get that... its free of charge tho

Young man, tell davien to bring it on

DProDG:


Almost nothing you've said here makes any sense whatsoever. It's simply impossible for me to respond to your individual statements without sarcasm just because of how stupid they are.

Now, what I have been asking since I first mentioned you...

[size=20pt]Give me an example of ONE argument where atheists cannot get by without moving goalposts.[/size]

My bet is that you're NOT gonna be able to provide one so it's safe to say you don't know what you're talking about and everything this OP is false.

Do you accept nothing?

davien:
You know you don't have a valid point when you project your own position on your opponent....

Christian: I'm religious!? Well you're religious too!

Christian: I have faith!? Well you have faith too!

Christian: The bible is a fairy-tale!? Well science is a fairy tale too!


Creationists like vooks and OLAADEGBU are a classic example of this...

Do you accept NOTHING?

DProDG:
I find this thread extremely hilarious and desperate. Cognitive dissonance will not let unphilaz and his fellow theists acknowledge that atheist arguments are much better than anything they can ever come up with so rather than just admit it, he decides to insist that there is something fundamentally wrong and fallacious with all atheist arguments, yet, cannot even defend it.

Still waiting for that* argument that no atheist can get past without moving goalposts. Don't feel rushed though, take your time, research and present it and put us to shame .

DO YOU ACCEPT NOTHING!

Please learn to spell atheist correctly first b4 debating one

unphilaz:
Do you accept NOTHING?

unphilaz:
DO YOU ACCEPT NOTHING!

unphilaz:
Do you accept nothing?

Well this just turned into a bigger joke than it initially was. Mention me when you get something. *unfollows thread*
[size=1pt]lmao... "athiest"[/size]

pesty100:
Please learn to spell atheist correctly first b4 debating one

Thanks and noted.

DProDG:


Well this just turned into a bigger joke than it initially was. Mention me when you get something. *unfollows thread*
[size=1pt]lmao... "athiest"[/size]

Lol, when you can answer that question, then you are welcome back into the thread.
Its too hard i guess.

Do you accept NOTHING?