Dejideji1:


Oga she is still wrong. As she didn't specify, stop trying to cover up for her.

You are being judgemental and irrarional...

Atheism is not a position of absolute knowledge, its is just the lack of belief in a god or gods...

Please be intellectually honest to maintain the respect i had for you because right now, you are just playing the typical theist game

If you dont know the difference between being an atheist, theist, gnostic and an agnostic, i suggest you do some research first before sounding really low here

donnffd:


You are being judgemental and irrarional...

Atheism is not a position of absolute knowledge, its is just the lack of belief in a god or gods...

Please be intellectually honest to maintain the respect i had for you because right now, you are just playing the typical theist game

If you dont know the difference between being an atheist, theist, gnostic and an agnostic, i suggest you do some research first before sounding really low here

U get time answer am sef .

urahara:



Agnostic.

Really? I have always seen you as one of the most radical Atheists here on NL. But still second to johnydon22 any way.
That guy is the most radical Atheist here on NL and very intelligent too. he must be Gnostic. Call him and HardMirror to view this thread cos i know you are friends.

Dejideji1:


Really? I have always seen you as one of the most radical Atheists here on NL. But still second to johnydon22 any way.
That guy is the most radical Atheist here on NL and very intelligent too. he must be Gnostic. Call him and HardMirror to view this thread cos i know you are friends.

I am agnostic atheist sir, not radical only outspoken...

.

johnydon22:

I am agnostic atheist sir, not radical only outspoken...

Oops! alright you are welcome

Dejideji1:


Really? I have always seen you as one of the most radical Atheists here on NL. But still second to johnydon22 any way.
That guy is the most radical Atheist here on NL and very intelligent too. he must be Gnostic. Call him and HardMirror to view this thread cos i know you are friends.

Lol. .

Johnny is not gnostic o. He is also agnostic.


Johnny and hardmirror , come and see o.

urahara:


Lol. .

Johnny is not gnostic o. He is also agnostic.


Johnny and hardmirror , come and see o.

LOL People always misunderstand and ultimately misrepresent the atheist position..

There is one thing i noticed on Nairaland lately there are more threads with "atheist/atheism" on their topics than there are now ones with 'God, religion'..

Thats really curious!!!

johnydon22:


LOL People always misunderstand and ultimately misrepresent the atheist position..

There is one thing i noticed on Nairaland lately there are more threads with "atheist/atheism" on their topics than there are now ones with 'God, religion'..

Thats really curious!!!

I swear.

Even those topics on bible blunders no dey reign again like b4

urahara:


Lol. .

Johnny is not gnostic o. He is also agnostic.


Johnny and hardmirror , come and see o.

Dejideji1:


Oops! alright you are welcome

I find the position of Gnostic Atheism and Gnostic theism irrational and emotional.

There are no empirical substantiation for the existence of God(s) and sadly such vague character is almost certainly cannot be scrutinized in the empirical sense.

so you simply do not know or can never know if such a thing exists or not just like you cannot vouch if there is no house of clear cut diamond somewhere in the universe.

You just have no idea and never can.

to assert such unproven hypothesis to be absolute truth is not only irrational but nonsensical to also assert to be absolutely certain that there is not such thing is likewise nonsensical.

those are positions of EMOTION than intellectual probe.

donnffd:


You are being judgemental and irrarional...

Atheism is not a position of absolute knowledge, its is just the lack of belief in a god or gods...

Please be intellectually honest to maintain the respect i had for you because right now, you are just playing the typical theist game

If you dont know the difference between being an atheist, theist, gnostic and an agnostic, i suggest you do some research first before sounding really low here

Bro you didn't get my point., if you call yourself an Atheist here in Nigeria, you are automatically saying that you DO NOT believe in the existence of God without any doubt.

Nobody will be patient enough to know if you are Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist. Check her comment again, she was arguing from the Agnostic Atheist point of view yet she chose to say "Atheist". How am i to know if she is Gnostic or Agnostic?

Only two guys here have confessed they are agnostic. That was why i faulted her. As a science student you must be clear and concise.

Dejideji1:


Bro you didn't get my point., if you call yourself an Atheist here in Nigeria, you are automatically saying that you DO NOT believe in the existence of God without any doubt.

Nobody will be patient enough to know if you are Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist. Check her comment again, she was arguing from the Agnostic Atheist point of view yet she chose to say "Atheist". How am i to know if she is Gnostic or Agnostic?

Only two guys here have confessed they are agnostic. That was why i faulted her. As a science student you must be clear and concise.

So true

Dejideji1:


Bro you didn't get my point., if you call yourself an Atheist here in Nigeria, you are automatically saying that you DO NOT believe in the existence of God without any doubt.

Nobody will be patient enough to know if you are Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist. Check her comment again, she was arguing from the Agnostic Atheist point of view yet she chose to say "Atheist". How am i to know if she is Gnostic or Agnostic?

Only two guys here have confessed they are agnostic. That was why i faulted her. As a science student you must be clear and concise.

Lol , did we steal meat from pot

Dejideji1:


Bro you didn't get my point., if you call yourself an Atheist here in Nigeria, you are automatically saying that you DO NOT believe in the existence of God without any doubt.

This is simply not true, there is no different definition of atheist in "Nigeria", being an atheist is just the lack of belief in the all of the aforementioned gods in human history

Nobody will be patient enough to know if you are Gnostic or Agnostic Atheist. Check her comment again, she was arguing from the Agnostic Atheist point of view yet she chose to say "Atheist". How am i to know if she is Gnostic or Agnostic?

Atheism and agnosticism are two different branches of philosophies, so the idea that when you state one, you must state the other is plain silly...
From your logic, anytime you tell someone you are a christian, always remember to tell them also if you are a gnostic christian or an agnostic Christian...

Only two guys here have confessed they are agnostic. That was why i faulted her. As a science student you must be clear and concise.

So be concise with your beliefs too...like i mentioned earlier...

NB: just because you are an agnostic doesnt mean the idea is on a 50:50 scale, i am an agnostic atheist but i believe the chances of a deity existence is pretty low the same way you would claim to be an agnostic to the idea of a santa clause, but i am certain you would say the chances of that being true is just as low...

donnffd:


anytime you tell someone you are a christian, always remember to tell them also if you are a gnostic christian or an agnostic Christian.

Bro, i don't want us to argue this issue any further because you seem not to get the way I'm viewing it. Now for the above if you call your self a Christian we will further probe you to know if you are a "born again" Christian or not. If you are not born again then you are not different from a pagan, an agnostic Christian is not a born again Christian.

donnffd:


This is simply not true, there is no different definition of atheist in "Nigeria",

Yes the definition is the same everywhere but an average Nigerian will take you to be Gnostic

donnffd:

the idea that when you state one, you must state the other is plain silly...

Yes it sounds silly but for the purpose of an argument like this you must state it. That's what i meant by being clear and concise, you know people are always looking for loopholes to fault you in an argument.

Dejideji1:


Bro, i don't want us to argue this issue any further because you seem not to get the way I'm viewing it. Now for the above if you call your self a Christian we will further probe you to know if you are a "born again" Christian or not. If you are not born again then you are not different from a pagan, an agnostic Christian is not a born again Christian.

You seem to be upset at atheists because you think (i.e if they dont put the agnostic in front) that they have 100% certainty that there is no god...but funny enough, you are guilty of the same crime, so you are 100% certain that there is a god.

You later call us close minded and all that...smh

As per your original posts, it ddnt get me to think because there is nothing up there i havent heard before

Dejideji1:


Yes the definition is the same everywhere but an average Nigerian will take you to be Gnostic



Yes it sounds silly but for the purpose of an argument like this you must state it. That's what i meant by being clear and concise, you know people are always looking for loopholes to fault you in an argument.

Smh...this is a cop out answer

Now i can see most of you are agnostic. I don't think i have any problem with you guys as you have not ruled out the possibility of God existing , you only have a problem with reasoning logically/scientifically with what is written in the religious books. But I can assure you guys that time will change most of you.

Dejideji1:

nothing comes from nothing.

This statement renders your argument invalid.
There can never be a "first mind" if the mind itself is "something"
because that will imply that that the "first mind" came from nothing.

I believe you are a christian and you are very sure that yahweh the god
of israel created you , you have no business promoting the heretic
view of some scientist who aren't so sure about where they stand.

Since you believe yahweh is real all you need to convince any atheist
is prove its existent by showing that he is capable of doing what is
being ascribed to him just as elijah was reported to have done.

neocortex:

This statement renders your argument invalid.

Go and argue that with George Stanciu and Robert Augros.

.

neocortex:


This statement renders your argument invalid.

My argument? Come on bro, don't be ridiculous. Go and argue that with George Stanciu and Robert Augros.

neocortex:


There can never be a "first mind" if the mind itself is "something"
because that will imply that that the "first mind" came from nothing.

Bro are you a physics student? if no then back off! If yes then is mind(consciousness) material or immaterial?

If you get that correctly then relate it to what you stated above which one can exist independent of the other?

I'm not even in the mood for argument.
As i have said, go and argue that with George Stanciu and Robert Augros. Or better still get their book on "The new story of science" maybe you will understand better. Before coming here to display your ignorance.

And as i have asked earlier if you are not a physics student don't even bother reading the book because you will not understand it.

neocortex:

I believe you are a christian and you are very sure that yahweh the god
of israel created you , you have no business promoting the heretic
view of some scientist who aren't so sure about where they stand.

Bro i don't know what you are talking about. There is only one God.

Dejideji1:



Don't mind her, she is confused. It seems she doesn't know the definition of an Atheist again

lolz

[quote author=Dejideji1 post=46711017]

My argument? Come on bro, don't be ridiculous. Go and argue that with George Stanciu and Robert Augros.

So you don't even understand what you typed, you just accepted it because George Stanciu and Robert Augros say so.

Bro are you a physics student? if no then back off! If yes then is mind(consciousness) material or immaterial?

If you get that correctly then relate it to what you stated above which one can exist independent of the other?

If you have a remote idea of what physics is about you won't be here arguing for an immaterial mind.
That is the purview of speculators not scientist.
I think you are confusing science and philosophy,
don't be deceived by " a scientist say so", there is a wide difference between
a scientific fact and a scientist opinion.

I will recommend you get an elementary physics book to clear your misconceptions.

I'm not even in the mood for argument.
As i have said, go and argue that with George Stanciu and Robert Augros. Or better still get their book on "The new story of science" maybe you will understand better. Before coming here to display your ignorance.

And as i have asked earlier if you are not a physics student don't even bother reading the book because you will not understand it.

This is quite ironic as someone who couldn't differentiate between science, scientific interpretation and opinion have no business
talking about physics.

Bro i don't know what you are talking about. There is only one God.

Yet you are hesitant to prove your one god, what are you afraid of ?

.

donnffd:


You seem to be upset at atheists because you think (i.e if they dont put the agnostic in front) that they have 100% certainty that there is no god...but funny enough, you are guilty of the same crime, so you are 100% certain that there is a god.

You later call us close minded and all that...smh

As per your original posts, it ddnt get me to think because there is nothing up there i havent heard before

*modified

donnffd:


You seem to be upset at atheists because you think (i.e if they dont put the agnostic in front) that they have 100% certainty that there is no god...but funny enough, you are guilty of the same crime, so you are 100% certain that there is a god.

You later call us close minded and all that...smh

I know we have put this argument to a
rest but i forgot to tell you the
dictionary definition of an Atheist
according to Oxford dictionary an
Atheist is a person that believes no
deities exist. The Gnostic and agnostic
concept are just extensions.

Now if you read the use of the word
"Atheist" in her argument then you will
know she's confused. And that's what led to all this unnecessary argument.

donnffd:

As per your original posts, it ddnt get me to think because there is nothing up there i havent heard before

Yes it can't get to you since you are agnostic. I only wanted to use it to create a doubt in your mind. Thought you were gnostic

.

neocortex:

Bro, i couldn't gather anything reasonable out of your reply, all i could see there is pure hate and i can see you are trying very hard to ridicule my post to justify your stance. But you still didn't make any sense.

Dejideji1:


Now if you read the use of the word
"Atheist" in her argument then you will
know she's confused. And that's what led to all this unnecessary argument.


Yes it can't get to you since you are agnostic. I only wanted to use it to create a doubt in your mind. Thought you were gnostic

Bro, she wasnt confused, because you dont understand her stand doesnt mean she is confused...

Atheism is not a belief system in which you must adhere to a set of rules.

Then this your ploy of throwing the words gnostic and agnostic around like asif being agnostic gives you hope.
I am an agnostic in the sense that i am not 100% certain dat no deities exist but i believe the chances of their existence is freaking low, i can comfortably say your god or every other god that has existed in human history doesnt exist, now is there something out there that we dont know of, maybe, i dont know but of the ones i have been told of, they absolutely dont exist...

Dejideji1,

You have quoted a lot of physicists and philosophers in your posts. I haven't verified the authenticity of your quotes, but I will assume you have done your due diligence, and aren't falsely quoting, or quoting out of context. These people are obviously very brilliant, as evinced in many of their works; and one could only aspire for the level of insights they all had in their days. That said, I do not wish to spend that much time on their philosophical musings and conclusions because the most brilliant figures of history have been known to make catastrophic mistakes on specific subjects that were outside their areas of expertise...even within the same broad field. No doubt, they have their reasons for arriving at their respective conclusions, but do you have reasons for arriving at yours?

I would like to give you more respect than to assume you believe the things you do because some brilliant persons said so. So, prove that you are worth the words you bellow from the pages of great philosophers by engaging us with your own philosophical thoughts on the subject, rather than just regurgitating things that have been said in the past.

Since I intend this to be a discourse about the things we know, I will start with my thoughts on the position of atheists, in order to highlight how severely you misunderstand atheism; and to do this, what better place to start my discourse than the very theory of knowledge itself? I will eventually arrive at my point, but you have to bear with me and read to the end.

A while ago, during one of my more productive introspections, I conceptualised an idea which I like to call the quadrant of knowledge. The goal of my musing then was to reduce the unitary universe of knowledge into definable categories, and that I did by dividing it into four parts as follows: Known-knowns, unknown-knowns, known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns. This categorisation of knowledge will prove useful in my defense of atheism.

1) Known-Knowns: These are basically the things that we have knowledge of; and that we are aware of of that knowledge. E.g. I have knowledge of what happens when I add two numbers together. I also know that I have that knowledge. The nature of this category of knowledge is such that it is the type of knowledge we actively go out of our ways to seek, and I consider it the smallest part of the knowledge quadrant.

2) Unknown-knowns: This category is for things we know, but are unaware of the existence of such knowledge. I consider many of our instinctive behaviours to be part of this category. Unknown-knowns are ephemeral by their very nature because they quickly transition to known-knowns after they are brought to light. By definition, it is impossible to give a live example of unknown-knowns, but consider this: Every creative work came from nowhere but the minds of their creators, so the very first time a creative work is conceived, that work has just made its transition from unknown-known to known-known.

3) Known-unknowns: This is as straight forward as it sounds. They are things you know you do not know. E.g. I use prescription medicines when I fall ill, and I know they work, I just don't know how they do. Although, this knowledge is well documented and I can know it with time and patience. Another example of this is radioactive decay. I know that it occurs in the unstable nuclei of certain isotopes of certain atoms, but I don't know why given the same isotopes, the individual atoms decay at different times. This one hasn't been answered by science, and I guarantee you a Nobel prize if you can find an answer to it. These are things I don't know; but for which I have awareness.

4) Unknown-unknowns: This category is a monstrosity. It consists of things you don't even know that you don't know. Such things exist completely outside of your awareness, either due to imperceptibility or limited experience. This category has the distinct feature of being infinitely sized because by definition, you have absolutely no awareness about you lack of knowledge, so that even if you claim to know everything, there would exist an inherent paradox in you knowing something which you are unaware of not knowing.

It is the category of the unknown-unknowns in which the very ontology of god falls. God belongs in this category, and not any other because it is a nebulous concept, which is either plagued with many definitions that are neither logical nor self-consistent, or is so vague as to be meaningless. Either way, it is something that we absolutely don't know what it is or how it works. I believe this is the position that most of the atheists with whom I've interacted take on the subject.

So, when you demand that an atheist proves that god doesn't exist, you're off the mark in thinking that the absence of god's existence is the goal of atheism. Au contraire, atheism acknowledges that there is yet no evidence of the existence of god, and so asserts that a position needs not be taken in that regard. I'm glad you identified the absurd cliches of unicorns and Santa Claus for their silliness, but I'm afraid you missed the point of such absurd arguments. The purpose of such arguments isn't to provide evidence for the non-existence of god, but to show that evidence for god's existence is just as scant as those for unicorns and Santa, further affirming the atheistic assertion that no position needs be taken on god's existence; not any more than one needs to be taken on unicorns and Santa! To me, this is just an elegant way of expressing the logical truth that negatives cannot be proven, thus necessarily placing the burden of proof on the claimant.

Is there any part of my argument your disagree with? If so, which and why?