KAG:

Thank you.

good can u describe the concepts and relations that can exist of me?

No. I don't know you. I know absolutely nothing about you. Can YOU describe the concepts and relations that can exist of you?


It is after we've deduced that esensed has an ontology - and I already did so - that we can ask esensed, not me, what his or her ontology, away from the basic generalities, are.

thanx for honestly stating u do not know my ontology

becasue u dont see me,
hear me,
you dont feel me,
you can only accept [i]WHAT I CHOOSE[/i]to reveal about myself, my concept and my relationship to all around me.


dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false? i dont think so

what do you think i will take u to be?

noetic2:

I do agree completely with ur assertion here.

I guess I was harsh and probably biased in fast dismissing KAG's points by pre-empting that the subject

Aren't you always? anything new?

hi kag

please r u still around,  or any athiest can help by proving what my ontology is?

thanks

pilgrim.1:

Lol, but no - yours was in a class of its own, couldn't have improved on it.

Aw, thanks. You're so sweet.

esensed:

thanx for honestly stating u do not know my ontology

becasue u dont see me,
hear me,
you dont feel me,
you can only accept [i]WHAT I CHOOSE[/i]to reveal about myself, my concept and my relationship to all around me.

Exactly. So, are you, um, going to reveal the intricacies of your ontology - or what you've discovered in relation to the subject? or are we gonna have to play twenty questions? What we know for some sort of certainty so far is that you have an ontology.

dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false? i dont think so

what do you think i will take u to be?

Ontology - I don't think it means what you think it means. Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods.

esensed:

hi kag

please r u still around,  or any athiest can help by proving what my ontology is?

thanks

I'm sure we can help. What parts of your ontology would you like evidenced. Try to state them as clearly as possible, or it may become tricky.

KAG:

Exactly. So, are you, um, going to reveal the intricacies of your ontology - or what you've discovered in relation to the subject? or are we gonna have to play twenty questions? What we know for some sort of certainty so far is that you have an ontology.

Ontology - I don't think it means what you think it means. Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods.

I'm sure we can help. What parts of your ontology would you like evidenced. Try to state them as clearly as possible, or it may become tricky.

KAG:

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."^[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy: studies about the nature of existence, life, essence, etc.

of certainity u do, but u know i can CHOOSE not to state my ONTOLOGY.

esensed:

thanx for honestly stating u do not know my ontology

becasue u dont see me,
hear me,
you dont feel me,
you can only accept [i]WHAT I CHOOSE[/i]to reveal about myself, my concept and my relationship to all around me.


dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, that what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false?

what do you think i will take u to be?

since u certain, can u logically answer the above.

in addition, if as a result of some error on seun's website becos of some bug, or becos the browser type u used is not compatible with the website setting of seun etc that can alter the presentation of myself through this forum, does it mean that WHAT I CHOOSE TO SAY ABOUT ME IS FALSE HENCE I DONT EXIST becos of how it was distorted?


THANKS FOR REPLY GOD BLESS!

KAG:

It is after we've deduced that esensed has an ontology - and I already did so - that we can ask esensed, not me, what his or her ontology, away from the basic generalities, are.

why do u like walking in a closed circle? since u have established that esensed has an ontology, what stops u from defining/stating that ontology?

esensed:


of certainity u do, but u know i can CHOOSE not to state my ONTOLOGY.

Then why the song and dance?

"dont you think it is merely stupid or outright foolishness that if i reveal myself to you (via this website created by seun) and u in your understanding decide to say that based on some analysis and conclusion, that what I CHOOSE to show u via this medium, is not right or proves that i dont exist hence i dont have an ontology. And moreover, if i refuse to use any forum beside nairaland to lend credence to my ontology, does that mean my report about myself in nairaland is false?"

since u certain, can u logically answer the above.

"Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods."

What's that? You are a six-armed Leprechaun with torpedoes for legs and jet into space at least once a day for radioactive supplements? I don't believe you. That doesn't preclude the person making th claims having an ontology, though.

in addition, if as a result of some error on seun's website becos of some bug, or becos the browser type u used is not compatible with the website setting of seun etc that can alter the presentation of myself through this forum, does it mean that WHAT I CHOOSE TO SAY ABOUT ME IS FALSE HENCE I DONT EXIST becos of how it was distorted?


THANKS FOR REPLY GOD BLESS!

You're still not making sense. It's like you're responding to some other argument on some form to which I'm not privy. *shrugs*

noetic2:

why do u like walking in a closed circle? since u have established that esensed has an ontology, what stops u from defining/stating that ontology?

Sure, I'll get right on it as soon as you show me where I've claimed to be omniscient or psychic. And, no, sarcastic commentary don't count.

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy

from ur reply above, i choose to accept your layman's definition and it speaks so well about what ontology means.

"Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods."

What's that? You are a six-armed Leprechaun with torpedoes for legs and jet into space at least once a day for radioactive supplements? I don't believe you. That doesn't preclude the person making th claims having an ontology, though.

that is what i was saying in my post, that if i CHOOSE NOT to make my ontology known to you u can assume me to be anything from the fits of your imagination, philosophy experience and you will be sincerely wrong at it. and of a fact you are wrong.

do you see your fallacy and limitation as an athiest about my ontology?

esensed:

Now what is the meaning of the term "ontology"? I like this one as I think it best sums it up: "An ontology is a specification of a conceptualization." Which in layman's terms means ". . . a description (like a formal specification of a program) of the concepts and relationships that can exist for an agent or a community of agents."[2] Doesn't that just blow you away? What I particularly like about that description is that, despite the claims of the author, it covers many thorny aspects of what exactly ontology describes in philosophy

from ur reply above, i choose to accept your layman's definition and it speaks so well about what ontology means.

Okay.

"Your argument appears to be illogical, more so because it's built on a straw man of what it means for atheists to reject the claims made on behalf of gods."

What's that? You are a six-armed Leprechaun with torpedoes for legs and jet into space at least once a day for radioactive supplements? I don't believe you. That doesn't preclude the person making th claims having an ontology, though.

that is what i was saying in my post, that if i CHOOSE NOT to make my ontology known to you u can assume me to be anything from the fits of your imagination, philosophy experience and you will be sincerely wrong at it. and of a fact you are wrong.

Well, not anything - that's why I don't believe you're a six-armed leprechaun. I also wouldn't be wrong if I stick to descriptions that are general - much like a general idea of ontology - and humancentric. Anyway, this might be a good time for you to get to your point.

do you see your fallacy and limitation as an athiest about my ontology?

No.

ok kag but hope u have followed my thought pattern? about proving my ontology?

esensed:

ok kag but hope u have followed my thought pattern? about proving my ontology?

No

I find this topic illogical.
How can i prove your ontology when i don't know who the hell you are. You first reveal yourself maybe orally or through a memior,blog or diary then we can study and know if you're being dishonest.
You can't for example claim to be loving or holy then we see in your diary that you steal, loot murder and full of jealousy. Its just not possible.

hello kag and tudor

Tudór:

I find this topic illogical.
How can i prove your ontology when i don't know who the hell you are. You first reveal yourself maybe orally or through a memior,blog or diary then we can study and know if you're being dishonest.
You can't for example claim to be loving or holy then we see in your diary that you steal, loot murder and full of jealousy. Its just not possible.

now that is what i want you to understand
How can i prove your ontology when i don't know who the hell you are.

It boils down to one simple point "CHOICE", a choice to reveal just what I WANT YOU TO KNOW ABOUT ME, period!

You first reveal yourself maybe orally or through a memior,blog or diary [/b]then we can study and know if you're being dishonest.

yes true, just as i stated, using the profile in nairaland, i may say i am tall, fair etc but u cant prove that that is what i am but simply u accept it as being me becasuse i chose what i want u to know and that does not make me a liar.

[b]You can't for example claim to be loving or holy then we see in your diary that you steal, loot murder and full of jealousy. Its just not possible.

yes  that is the TOTALITY OF WHAT I CHOOSE TO REVEAL ABOUT ME but that does not make my existence untrue? or more better it does not prove that i dont exist but proves i EXIST hence you must accept ie believe I EXIST not the other way round.

even tho it is foolishness to your understanding all I CHOOSE TO REVEAL ABOUT MYSELF yet you accept that I EXIST.

THEN if you accept i EXIST, you would draw close to understand WHY i DID WHAT I DID as a COUNSELLOR OR AN ADVOCATE to understand me better- abi? 


MY RIGHTNESS OR WRONGNESS DOES NOT PROVE I DONT EXIST BUT ON THE CONTRARY IT DOES PROVE I EXIST AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE ME!!!

U FEEL HIM!

What the HELL are you talking about ?
You're just tripping all over and confusing yourself.

Let me make it simple for ya using your logic- Charles dickens wrote the story oliver twist. . .the story contains everything from the experience,thoughts to nature and character of the young boy oliver. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLIVER TWIST ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

Your god has not REVEALED himself,all we have are a couple of writings by deluded men who for all we know might be lying about their experiences.
If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.

Tudór:

What the HELL are you talking about ?
You're just tripping all over and confusing yourself.

Let me make it simple for ya using your logic- Charles dickens wrote the story oliver twist. . .the story contains everything from the experience,thoughts to nature and character of the young boy oliver. THAT IN ITSELF DOES NOT MEAN THAT OLIVER TWIST ACTUALLY DOES EXIST.

Your god has not REVEALED himself,all we have are a couple of writings by deluded men who for all we know might be lying about their experiences.
If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.

Hallo Tudór,

To be quite frank with you, that lot up there is absolute bunkum. You have just demonstrated yet again that you have no clue about the issues you seek to argue and are just yapping. Take this line for instance:

Tudór:
If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.

Have you revealed yourself in PERSON, Tudór? And seeing you have not done so, is that reason enough to doubt your existence?

I think you should learn to reason in the intelligent manner that people like KAG does. You sometimes are quite unware that your own arguments just quite simply deflate your whole premise.

____________________________________

Tudór:

I find this topic illogical.
How can i prove your ontology when i don't know who the hell you are. You first reveal yourself maybe orally or through a memior,blog or diary then we can study and know if you're being dishonest.
You can't for example claim to be loving or holy then we see in your diary that you steal, loot murder and full of jealousy. Its just not possible.

Lol, funny. If you have to consult any diary one way or another, it does not disprove his existence - rather, you're making a case for his actual dasein and would wind up defeating your own argument.

You know pilgrim i expected better from you
for someone who mentions the word 'intelligence' or 'intellect' every time they post it wouldn't kill you to demonstrate a little. . . .

Anybody has the right to doubt my existence given that i've not personally revealed myself with evidence to show who i am. For all we know i could be yar'adua masquerading as an ordinary nigerian to spy on the forum or i could be seun the site admin using 'tudor' to hide my true identity.
In both cases the person 'tudor' as an ordinary atheist nigerian does not EXIST its just a cover for the REAL ME which i've decided to hide. And you or anyone else can rightfully doubt.

I'm quite sure you see my argument but you instead choose to play dumb for jesus. Quite a shame really. . .

Tudór:

You know pilgrim i expected better from you
for someone who mentions the word 'intelligence' or 'intellect' every time they post it wouldn't kill you to demonstrate a little. . . .

My apologies. Maybe you could take the lead and show some - won't hurt, no?

Tudór:

Anybody has the right to doubt my existence given that i've not personally revealed myself with evidence to show who i am. For all we know i could be yar'adua masquerading as an ordinary nigerian to spy on the forum or i could be seun the site admin using 'tudor' to hide my true identity.
In both cases the person 'tudor' as an ordinary atheist nigerian does not EXIST its just a cover for the REAL ME which i've decided to hide. And you or anyone else can rightfully doubt.

Aww, you're so dashingly brilliant - NOT!
Okay, here-here, my dear connoisseur.

There are a few things you should take to heart:

(a) what you're trying ever so hard to describe is your "non-existence of self nature". . . something very akin to the Japanese "mujishô" (i.e., a denial of self as a real entity). The denial of self in itself does not constitute 'non-existence' as far as ontology is concerned; rather, it actually presupposes one's existence inspite of whatever else may be speculated upon. Therefore, to have employed such pointers as

       ♥ 'i could be'

       ♥ 'hide my true identity'

       ♥ ''tudor' as an ordinary atheist nigerian'

       ♥ 'the REAL ME'

All these are merely "mujishô" and do not constitute doubts for existence - in the first place, there would be no you at all trying to describe your own non-existence. What you've done is actually presupposed your own existence by those qualifiers, so that it becomes meaningless to quip that you've "decided to hide"; how could a non-existent entity "decide" anything at all?

(b) Upon the basis of your "mujishô", one would not even have expected to read anything from you as a reply to my earlier reponse. The fact that you actually make that reply, fill in the gaps for us, lead us to structure our inferences around what you are pleased to hide or reveal - all these are pointers to your existence and not the other way round.

Don't you see how you've actually said A LOT about your very EXISTENCE? 

Tudór:
I'm quite sure you see my argument but you instead choose to play dumb for jesus. Quite a shame really. . .

Okay, my apologies again - it was just a bit comical to read "your argument" and then "doubt" your very existence. It's actually comedy at its very best! Well done!

I wonder if you read my post at all. Sometimes i think you're alittle over-eager for your own good.

No where in my post did i deny my existence or ''non-existence of self nature'' as you put it.
Rather i pointed out OTHERS could doubt my existence based on the non-physical revelation of myself.
There's a BIG difference between ''OTHERS'' and ''SELF''.
So all you wrote above is just a waste of bits and bytes worth of space.
The real essense of life is in the simple things,you didn't have to go digging for your old japanese dictionary only to come mis-quote me.
Therefore you can take your mojito or mushû whatever and stuff it neatly in your bible.

Tudór:

I wonder if you read my post at all. Sometimes i think you're alittle over-eager for your own good.

No where in my post did i deny my existence or ''non-existence of self nature'' as you put it.
Rather i pointed out OTHERS could doubt my existence based on the non-physical revelation of myself.
There's a BIG difference between ''OTHERS'' and ''SELF''.
So all you wrote above is just a waste of bits and bytes worth of space.
The real essense of life is in the simple things,you didn't have to go digging for your old japanese dictionary only to come mis-quote me.
Therefore you can take your mojito or mushû whatever and stuff it neatly in your bible.

Pilgirm 1 is a very interesting person, If you ask her to tell you why she believes in a god that is invisible, she will go off tangent and will begin to tell you that the Mongolians found an invisible pink flower orbiting the moon, and the North Koreans also experienced the same thing, The Chineses were the first to have a clue about the invisibe flower and the Japanese were also worshipping the invisible pink flower. So the fact that you don't see the invisible pink flower does not mean that others haven't seen it hence her god is not invisible.

You can't beat that can you?

Tudór:

I wonder if you read my post at all. Sometimes i think you're alittle over-eager for your own good.

No where in my post did i deny my existence or ''non-existence of self nature'' as you put it.
Rather i pointed out OTHERS could doubt my existence based on the non-physical revelation of myself.
There's a BIG difference between ''OTHERS'' and ''SELF''.
So all you wrote above is just a waste of bits and bytes worth of space.
The real essense of life is in the simple things,you didn't have to go digging for your old japanese dictionary only to come mis-quote me.
Therefore you can take your mojito or mushû whatever and stuff it neatly in your bible.

And just what have you tried to say at the very least up there?  

We don't need any Japanese dictionary to explain anything - at least I explained the terms I used. You, on the other hand, were very eager to flap your wings about existence and non-existence; afterall, who was it that bent back over with this quip:

[list]

Tudór:

If you wan't to reveal yourself do so in PERSON or people would be absolutely right in doubting your existence.

[/list]??

If you have problems arguing about "existence" as the essential bit of your worries, you can do so in an intelligent persuasive manner. But to come back defeating your own argument and yet growing all the more restless only further defeats your cause. I'm quite happy to be entertained by your comedy all the same.

toneyb:

Pilgirm 1 is a very interesting person, If you ask her to tell you why she believes in a god that is invisible, she will go off tangent and will begin to tell you that the Mongolians found and invisible pink flower orbiting the moon, and the North Koreans also experienced the same thing, The Chineses were the first to have a clue about the invisibe flower and the Japanese were also worshipping the invisible pink flower. So the fact that you don't see the invisible pink flower does not mean that others haven't seen it hence her god is not invisible.

You can't beat that can you?

If you only learn to tell yourself the truth, it won't hurt you. Have I ever argued any 'pink flower' with you? The hollow carping of your atheistic logic is more than the comedy that comes before it. But well done all the same.

pilgrim.1:

If you only learn to tell yourself the truth, it won't hurt you. Have I ever argued any 'pink flower' with you? The hollow carping of your atheistic logic is more than the comedy that comes before it. But well done all the same.

welcome to Toneyb's world

pilgrim.1:

If you only learn to tell yourself the truth, it won't hurt you. Have I ever argued any 'pink flower' with you? The hollow carping of your atheistic logic is more than the comedy that comes before it. But well done all the same.

, I should be the one to tell you that the hallow carping of your theistic logic is more than comedy that comes before it. Well done all the same too.  

noetic2:

welcome to Toneyb's world

Pilgirim1 is an interesting person and I have learnt a lot from here unlike you who makes baseless assertions and runs away when people tell you to come and defend what you have said.

toneyb:

Pilgirim1 is an interesting person and I have learnt a lot from here unlike you who makes an assertion and runs away when people tell you to come and defend what you have said.

Deep in your heart u know this is false.

toneyb:

Pilgirim1 is an interesting person and I have learnt a lot from here unlike you who makes an assertion and runs away when people tell you to come and defend what you have said.

Lol, thanks for the accolade; it would have been saved for your drama, toneyb.

toneyb:

, I should be the one to tell you that the hallow carping of your theistic logic is more than comedy that comes before it. Well done all the same too.  

Oh thanks - I never knew mine was "hallow". I just don't do pink flowers as you tried to deceive yourself with; perhaps you need to re-read your acting scripts.

noetic2:

welcome to Toneyb's world

Na today?

noetic2:

Deep in your heart u know this is false.

He couldn't do any better - we understand.

Pilgrim are you bored?

Chrisbenogor:

Pilgrim are you bored?

Maybe. Just wonder why people just like to tease themselves on assumptions that are untrue and then try to attribute them to pilgrim.1 - what's all that about?

pilgrim.1:

Maybe. Just wonder why people just like to tease themselves on assumptions that are untrue and then try to attribute them to pilgrim.1 - what's all that about?

Lol me I don't know oh maybe its the way you deliver your punches, iron fist in a velvet glove, you can never resist the urge to show how foolish a person is can you?
You too dey blow grammer na small matter dey for ground you go far far japan go bring mojito abi moshito to chook head inside the matter

Seriously though can you explain the logic the OP is trying to get across to us, as you be the logic police now

Ehen where that your pishure na, I don dey wait since oh

Chrisbenogor:

Lol me I don't know oh maybe its the way you deliver your punches, iron fist in a velvet glove, you can never resist the urge to show how foolish a person is can you?

Chris, this is where you're misreading issues. You've been on this same ideology far too long and should move on. Often times when I try to reason with people, it's not about punches or making anyone look foolish. Yes, we all react sometimes - and I've shown appreciation for other people's posts, regardless whether they are theists or atheists. When some atheists seek to engage in discussions, they often seek to parade themselves as the "rational" discussants with a spleen on the chip of their shoulders to make others look foolish. This recurrent attitude does not help the atheist, nor infact anybody at all regardless their worldview. If someone would like to put their views across, they could do so - just because others may not agree with them does not warrant a default resort to invectives.

Chrisbenogor:

You too dey blow grammer na small matter dey for ground you go far far japan go bring mojito abi moshito to chook head inside the matter

No vex - at least I explain the grammar wey I use na. .
If that one no do sef, I still come back to explain for the bobo say wetin he dey vex for no dey brun person for im backyard, abi?

Chrisbenogor:

Seriously though can you explain the logic the OP is trying to get across to us, as you be the logic police now

I no be any 'police'. As for the logic, you sef for tunr to the prevo page and see how me sef tanda. But after they explained, and then KAG delivered a classic response, I breathe easy for where I sidon.

Chrisbenogor:
Ehen where that your pishure na, I don dey wait since oh

Oooh, U sef. . . I go report olopa for you o!
I don tell you bifor: I wo-wo (abi na 'wor-wor')

I no wan continue to make excuses, but one day I go post am.