TenQ:

Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

How come you aren't showing me a screenshot for the definition of agnostic theist?

Myer:


I think at this point you should write to the queen if England and teach them their own language.

I'm done sir.

[b]According to the queen of England, what would be the antonym for BELIEF?[/b]
Would it be a LACK of BELIEF?

Myer:


I think at this point you should write to the queen if England and teach them their own language.

I'm done sir.

According to the queen of England, what would be the antonym for BELIEF?
Would it be a LACK of BELIEF?

Myer:


I expected this base and unintelligent response.
But I decided to bait you into it just to gauge your iq.

Scientifically living things exhibit several characteristics. This should remind you of MRNIGERD.

So using comparison between living things as an insult only depicts unintelligence.

Eg Animal moves, does that mean that movement of humans is supposed to be derogatory?
Animals breath, perhaps you should stop breathing.
Animals feed, let's see how long you last without food.
Animals respond to stimuli, I'm sure you are already deciding your reaction to my response.

So me alluding the word atheism to animals or any other living creature is something that should make an intelligent mind see beyond insult but observation.

If an animal is trained to believe in god then it would likewise be theist. Perhaps that means theists are also animals?

Think sir!
Can an animal truly be an atheist?
Can a plant truly be an atheist?
Can a stone truely be an atheist?

Just check your logic!

LordReed:


How come you aren't showing me a screenshot for the definition of agnostic theist?

Is my definition wrong?
If it is wrong, how?

TenQ:

Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

[/quote][quote author=TenQ post=108613888]
According to the queen of England, what would be the antonym for BELIEF?
Would it be a LACK of BELIEF?

Since you know better than the owners of the language I'm sure you'll know what to write her.

Cos I've taken the pain of giving you a dictionary definition yet you are still arguing after the fact.

TenQ:

Is my definition wrong?
If it is wrong, how?

I want you to post a screenshot of the definition of agnostic theist just like you did for agnostic.

LordReed:


I want you to post a screenshot of the definition of agnostic theist just like you did for agnostic.

That is a compound word. I am not sure any English dictionary describes an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. What we have are people's description of it. I can easily post the dictionary definition of atheism,theism and agnostism but not agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist

I use a Webster's English Dictionary (nothing like that)

How wrong is my definition:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

TenQ:

That is a compound word. I am not sure any English dictionary describes an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. What we have are people's description of it. I can easily post the dictionary definition of atheism,theism and agnostism but not agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist

I use a Webster's English Dictionary (nothing like that)

How wrong is my definition:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

Not going answer your question until you post a screenshot of the meaning of agnostic theist. When you do we can discuss if the meaning you posted is wrong or not.

TenQ:

Only babies can lack a belief and the reason is obvious. The concept of deity get formed after some level of cognition is built in a child.

Why are you scared or apprehensive of the replacement of "lack of belief" with the proper antonym words like Disbelief, Doubt, Unbelief: knowing that these are the exact opposite of belief?

Could it be that the use of the words lack of BELIEF is calculated to do something else?

Will you agree that anyone/anything that cannot reason will lack a belief?

A lack of belief stems from lack of cognition.

Let me ask you a question:
Do you believe or lack a belief in akokuja?
Please tell the truth?

LoL! I see your problem now. The definition of atheism as lack of belief is not exclusive of other forms of atheism, rather is inclusive of all forms of atheism. There are atheists who actively disbelieve in all gods, I am not one therefore the most basic description of what makes I and these other types of atheists is our shared lack of belief. So there's nothing like I am afraid of using those words. If lack of belief is calculated to do anything it is to make sure all forms of atheism are captured.

Of course something that cannot reason will lack belief, it couldn't hold belief in the first place. That doesn't remotely equate such incapable things with humans who have no belief in a god because the humans can have beliefs.

A lack of belief doesn't only stem from lack of cognition. It is like saying the only way an organism can ingest food is through a mouth while completely ignoring organisms that ingest food via means other than mouths.

I lack belief in akokuja.

DISBELIEF.

TenQ:

I've been helping you but what you want is money. I don't know you well enough to do that please. Understand!

You can ask questions about me


Tell me what you want to know about me


It's necessary

TenQ:

Awareness of knowledge. Is it possible to explain the concept of a deity to an animal?

I think LordReed has stated enough about this.

TenQ:

Think sir!
Can an animal truly be an atheist?
Can a plant truly be an atheist?
Can a stone truely be an atheist?

Just check your logic!

Apparently I'm the only one who seems to be doing the thinking here.

In defending your argument you seem to have lost your appreciation of definitions.

Myer:


Apparently I'm the only one who seems to be doing the thinking here.

In defending your argument you seem to have lost your appreciation of definitions.

Really!?
Honestly I don't understand you?

HellVictorinho3:


I think LordReed has stated enough about this.

It was a YES or NO question!

LordReed:


LoL! I see your problem now. The definition of atheism as lack of belief is not exclusive of other forms of atheism, rather is inclusive of all forms of atheism. There are atheists who actively disbelieve in all gods, I am not one therefore the most basic description of what makes I and these other types of atheists is our shared lack of belief. So there's nothing like I am afraid of using those words. If lack of belief is calculated to do anything it is to make sure all forms of atheism are captured.

Of course something that cannot reason will lack belief, it couldn't hold belief in the first place. That doesn't remotely equate such incapable things with humans who have no belief in a god because the humans can have beliefs.

A lack of belief doesn't only stem from lack of cognition. It is like saying the only way an organism can ingest food is through a mouth while completely ignoring organisms that ingest food via means other than mouths.

I think you are still bent on forcefully using the phrase "lack of a belief" rather than the logical antonyms of belief such as Unbelief, Disbelief, Doubt.

If theism is defined as a belief in a deity,
Atheism should be properly defined as Unbelief, Disbelief or Doubt in any deity.

The phrase "lack of a belief" isn't the antonym for belief.

LordReed:

I lack belief in akokuja.

Wrong answer.
How can you claim a disbelief on something you don't even have an idea about.

You should have asked the simple question: what is akokuja?

What if I told you that akokuja is an ancient Sumerian word meaning "myself"?

Do you truely disbelief in Yourself?

LordReed:


Not going answer your question until you post a screenshot of the meaning of agnostic theist. When you do we can discuss if the meaning you posted is wrong or not.

Then you are forcing a stubborn stalemate. Can you find me a dictionary that has the word agnostic-theist

TenQ:

I think you are still bent on forcefully using the phrase "lack of a belief" rather than the logical antonyms of belief such as Unbelief, Disbelief, Doubt.

If theism is defined as a belief in a deity,
Atheism should be properly defined as Unbelief, Disbelief or Doubt in any deity.

The phrase "lack of a belief" isn't the antonym for belief.

See the attached screenshot.

Wrong answer.
How can you claim a disbelief on something you don't even have an idea about.

You should have asked the simple question: what is akokuja?

What if I told you that akokuja is an ancient Sumerian word meaning "myself"?

Do you truely disbelief in Yourself?

You are the one who is wrong. It is exactly because I didn't know what akokuja is that I lack belief belief in it. I actually searched for the word and nothing came up. How can I have a believe in what I don't know? The correct answer is I lack belief it. I don't even believe you are correct that it means myself. Post a link to evidence that it means what you say it means.

TenQ:

Then you are forcing a stubborn stalemate. Can you find me a dictionary that has the word agnostic-theist

It's not any kind of stalemate or at least the stubbornness is from you. I already attached a screenshot of the definition of agnostic-theist in a previous response but you ignored it because you are dead set on proving your error as right.

TenQ:

It was a YES or NO question!

Will you assist me financially if I answer that question?

LordReed:

See the attached screenshot.

Rather than deal with the obvious, can see an adoption of a new definition here by the owners of the language. I admit that language vocabularies grow with time. Even the distinction of the definition of who is MALE and FEMALE is now blurred now.

LordReed:

You are the one who is wrong. It is exactly because I didn't know what akokuja is that I lack belief belief in it. I actually searched for the word and nothing came up. How can I have a believe in what I don't know? The correct answer is I lack belief it. I don't even believe you are correct that it means myself. Post a link to evidence that it means what you say it means.

Akukuja actually means nothing: it was an "invention". I should have used one that exists to illustrate my point

Here is one - it's old Yoruba word, "Ito" pronounced like (ata- pepper) (sounds musically like "jingle" in the Christmas song jingle bells). I've given you enough hint

So, here is the question properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

LordReed:


It's not any kind of stalemate or at least the stubbornness is from you. I already attached a screenshot of the definition of agnostic-theist in a previous response but you ignored it because you are dead set on proving your error as right.

I think I see your point now. I have defined agnostic theist from a Christian point of view and that would be a narrow definition.
In other words, Just as agnostic-atheist is defined from the point of view of unbelieve, agnostic-theist are defined in terms of belief.

Even though I agree with you on this, I think the view possesses an inherent contradiction and illogicality irrespective of how we choose to define agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist.

How can one believe or disbelieve that which is impossible to know?

I guess everything is not on the sensibility of the position but the emotional disposition. The human mind is a powerful engine.

TenQ:

Escapism!
No one has seen them but we may need to look at effect of werewolves, unicorns and vampires. The lack of evidence of any evidence may indicate that there is nothing about them in the first place.

Unfortunately for the creator, creation itself is a major evidence EXCEPT we are willing to believe that the UNIVERSE created itself!

Why can you not believe the universe created itself when you obviously believe that the creator who supposedly created it was not created himself?
Why can't the same apply to all forms of life in this universe. Perhaps being is just the default. We are just expressions in the great void that is the nothingness that actually existed before we the expressions sprung forth.

I am not saying what I wrote just now is actually the fact. I am saying it is as plausible as any religious belief.

TenQ:

Rather than deal with the obvious, can see an adoption of a new definition here by the owners of the language. I admit that language vocabularies grow with time. Even the distinction of the definition of who is MALE and FEMALE is now blurred now.



Akukuja actually means nothing: it was an "invention". I should have used one that exists to illustrate my point

Here is one - it's old Yoruba word, "Ito" pronounced like (ata- pepper) (sounds musically like "jingle" in the Christmas song jingle bells). I've given you enough hint

So, here is the question properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

Urine? Do you mean ingesting it? I believe it might provide marginal usefulness when ingested but too marginal to be truly useful. If you mean just its expulsion from the body then yes I believe it has a lot of functionality for humans.

TenQ:

What's troubling you?
Why are you this angry?

I don't care about spiderman, superman or batman, yet nothing you say about them can make me angry!
I don't care about Santa Claus, but I am not obsessed with disproving it (don't forget that every december, these are pushed into my face)!!

What are you hiding from?

You can discuss like an adult without the anger tantrums!!

Trying to equate your religion to Santa or SuperMan and using the exclusive opposition to yours alone as a crutch to assert the truth of your religion is dishonest at best.
Everyone knows the aforementioned are make-believe. Nobody has started a making assertions about the afterlife solely on comic book characters or Santa. No one has asked for political laws to be drafted to suit the belief in Santa. No one has tried to deny others right to life and happiness based on what they think Santa wants for the world. The fact that you think that comparison is logical is laughable.

TenQ:

I think I see your point now. I have defined agnostic theist from a Christian point of view and that would be a narrow definition.
In other words, Just as agnostic-atheist is defined from the point of view of unbelieve, agnostic-theist are defined in terms of belief.

Even though I agree with you on this, I think the view possesses an inherent contradiction and illogicality irrespective of how we choose to define agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist.

How can one believe or disbelieve that which is impossible to know?

I guess everything is not on the sensibility of the position but the emotional disposition. The human mind is a powerful engine.

Because that is how beliefs work. Beliefs do not require explicit knowledge in other to be formed. People believe all sorts of things they either have no knowledge or very poor knowledge of.

Buliwyf:


Trying to equate your religion to Santa or SuperMan and using the exclusive opposition to yours alone as a crutch to assert the truth of your religion is dishonest at best.
Everyone knows the aforementioned are make-believe. Nobody has started a making assertions about the afterlife solely on comic book characters or Santa. No one has asked for political laws to be drafted to suit the belief in Santa. No one has tried to deny others right to life and happiness based on what they think Santa wants for the world. The fact that you think that comparison is logical is laughable.

Please, can you help me?

Buliwyf:


Why can you not believe the universe created itself when you obviously believe that the creator who supposedly created it was not created himself?
Why can't the same apply to all forms of life in this universe. Perhaps being is just the default. We are just expressions in the great void that is the nothingness that actually existed before we the expressions sprung forth.

I am not saying what I wrote just now is actually the fact. I am saying it is as plausible as any religious belief.

It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

TenQ:

It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

Anything with a beginning can't be ever-existing

TenQ:

It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

Nope. It's scientifically accepted that the universe as we know it began something like 13.8 billion years ago. That is done by extrapolating from our current position and the rate of expansion of the universe. It says nothing about the Big Bang or the state of the universe before the Big Bang. In fact there are some who actually think that it is not just one bang but a recurring series of expansions and contractions. Anything before the Big bang cannot be known with our current knowledge of physics. And no scientist worth his onions can claim for a fact he/she knows.

So yeah the universe is no different from your god. Because we don't know it's cause or it's actual beginning. But it is even better than your god if only for the mere fact that we can see it, trace and prove it's existence.

By the way, why do you think the universe or any creator should not be subject to the laws of physics? Where is it stated that is a rule? Oh I remember you came to that conclusion all by yourself based on dogma and not with any proof. Just like your religion.

Buliwyf:


Nope. It's scientifically accepted that the universe as we know it began something like 13.8 billion years ago. That is done by extrapolating from our current position and the rate of expansion of the universe. It says nothing about the Big Bang or the state of the universe before the Big Bang. In fact there are some who actually think that it is not just one bang but a recurring series of expansions and contractions. Anything before the Big bang cannot be known with our current knowledge of physics. And no scientist worth his onions can claim for a fact he/she knows.

So yeah the universe is no different from your god. Because we don't know it's cause or it's actual beginning. But it is even better than your god if only for the mere fact that we can see it, trace and prove it's existence.

Considering the universe as a group of things which means it has a beginning.....



But there are other issues I have to address



Have you gotten the email?