₦airaland Forum

vaxx:
I just reply it

hopefulLandlord:
You're committing a fallacy called Etymological Fallacy The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning

but there are various examples of words today that meant something slightly different originally and some that actually contradicts its original meaning

The word hound originally simply meant "dog" in general. This usage is now archaic or poetic only, and hound now almost exclusively refers to dogs bred for hunting in particular.

The meaning of a word may change to connote higher status, as when knight , originally "servant" like German Knecht , came to mean "military knight" and subsequently "someone of high rank".

Conversely, the word knave originally meant "boy" (as the equivalent German Knabe ) and only gradually acquired its meaning of "person of low, despicable character".

The word "Awful" originally meant "Awe-inspring" and "Full of awe" but now means something bad

The word "Moody" originally meant "Courageous" but now means something totally different

The word lady derives from Old English hlæf-dige ("loaf-digger; kneader of bread" ), and lord from hlafweard ("loaf-ward; ensurer, provider of bread" ). No connection with bread is retained in the current meaning of either word.

vaxx:
every word as is own root.... The foundation of the word atheism is what I made mention....if you have a doubt of the existence of God then the foundation of the word doesn't apply to you ........the word pagan was used to discribe villager during roman empire.. Christian adopt it to also call whoever do not belive in abrahimic faith a pagan.... Which i reject to be labelled becyse it does not describe my faith. so for the word to be correct we should look at the very foundation.... In Yoruba language we do not call the European white...we call them oyinbo meaning a skin that has been peel..likewise the word negro refers to people with burn face....


For you to agree on the labelling...check out the root word...

vaxx:
atheism by definition come from the root word atheus (greek)meaning ....without God ....not someone who exhibit skepticism

vaxx:
you have not give me the reason's you call me herbalist.... Yours has been given.... So with the way you describe youself that is the best labelling for you... You do not reject God nor care if he exist....am waiting for mine?

butterflyl1on:
In other exact words all you scientifically live for?

vaxx:
whao..that is good...I established why you are a skepkc agonstic, can you give me the reasons of mine

butterflyl1on:
AgentOfAllah this is the thing about non specific answers, they raise more questions.

You say believing in god hasn't proven useful and disbelieving hasn't proven disastrous either so this raises another question.

What would you term as useful in your comment? What usefulness were you seeking originally that a belief in god translated to redundancy?

vaxx:
by this definition.... You are not an atheist.... Permit me to label you a skeptic agonist......... I will create a thread where we can dsscuss why you need to stop the doubting and established your faith with God....for now this op aim to establish atheism as a confusion labelling...

butterflyl1on:
I cannot tell you why you should see a need when I do not even know why you see no need. You see no need means you have reasons why you see no need so what are they?

AgentOfAllah:
A need is something that is useful in one way or another.

Believing in god hasn't proven useful to me, and disbelieving hasn't proven disastrous either. So I see no need!

vaxx:
that is not good enough in argument.... I throw you a question ....answer mine, then throw yours...but I will answer yours..... Well I see need to belive there is invisible ninja... It may be a sort of help or disaster if I reject the belive ... What about yours...why do you see no need to belive in God...

butterflyl1on:
This is the thing. Simply answer the question. My reasons are not yours. So your specific reasons if all I seek. Why do you see no need to believe?

butterflyl1on:
Why do you see no reason to believe?

vaxx:
you are right... But for the purpose of this op...which simply state that atheism by definition is a problem... Which no one has been able to refute the claim.....you said you see no need...and I wannner know why....the invisible ninja may be a sort of help if there is evidence.... Not to derail the topic... Why do you see no need

butterflyl1on:
You believe that their could be an all powerful creator of everything yet see no need to believe there is one. You are simply irreligious. You need something to hold on to but can find none. You seek validation but have none.

butterflyl1on:
Sorry but this is a contradiction.

If you do not believe there is a god it simply means you disbelieve a god exists and this in itself translates to you believe there is no god.

vaxx:
if that is the case.....you do not fall under atheism dogmatism... You belive in god(evidence of faith) , you do not see the need to belive in one( skeptic) therefore you are labelled a skeptic agnostic ....any way why do you think there is no need...you answer here may change your labellings again?

vaxx:
sure...is that the logic you follow?

vaxx:
this is contradiction..... You believe there is god and still don't see a need to belive in one...am not getting you...

vaxx:
simple, before we go further....
Why do you believe there is no God....pls in a simple statement.....

vaxx:
They are two types of atheist... Moral and scientists atheist....

Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world. "Why would a loving and just God allow evil into the world?" This question supposes that God does exist. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Moral Atheism is therefore contradictory.

A1. The moral atheist cannot define evil

Moral Atheism supposes that morality is subjective, yet often condemns people with a different set of moral codes. In order to blame God for evil, there must be a consensus on what is defined as evil yet the moral atheist cannot adequately define evil because he cannot support his definition with an original point.

B. Scientific Atheism contradicts moral atheism

This point is far more simple. Simply put, how can you cast blame for evil on something you claim doesn't exist?

Conclusion: atheism, be it a blend of moral and scientific atheism, or either individually, is far more irrational than a belief in God..

Note..

vaxx:
it is the brain that send signal to every part of our ogarn...for example it is the brain that let our body knows we are full, it is the same brain that still make our body call for more. Food...this why people still force themselves to eat even after satisfaction.....

If that is the case our organ can not independently be selfish without the signals of the brain....whatever is the cause must be as a result of brain preferences.....

With your hypothesis.... Are you suggesting our orgarns can act independently without receiving signals from the brain....

vaxx:
I will try and pay attention on the hypothesis only for academic purpose only......

You are cool and smart dude , how I wish you are religious..... At least a pagan .... Art world is big ....you can try literature

Empiree:
AgentofAllah, remember i said earlier that the most important thing is knowing God, worshipping Him and making istighfar?. The above hadith reiterates that fact. Notice that in this hadith, the Prophet ﷺ informed us, through his companion Ibn Abbas (ra), that the decree has already been made. The pages have been dried. Even so, the Prophet ﷺ prescribed action: to be mindful of Allah and to seek help from Allah.

So AgentofAllah, the above answers your post up there. You seem to alleged that everything is decreed and we have free will therein. If i get you right, your position is that of Jabarites. Every muslim is required to take middle part. The Quran and Sunnah are clear in expressing the moral responsibility of humankind.


If you disagree @ "agentofAllah", then, there is no need to chase, arrest and imprison robbers, fraudsters, scammers, BH, thieves etc bcus they are destined to do what they do and have no free will. Sorry buddy, there are checks and balances.

vaxx:
you already tell me what I want to hear general common ancestors.. that is very fine by me.....

Let me quickly correct some assumptions..

1..we could really share ideas and learn from...each other... you could create a thread on whatever hypothesis you make and lets debate on it....you are not yet an authority...whatever argument you make using your own hypothesis is an assumption...i have never claim to know...i brought existing evidence that has been certified in my argument and not my opinion....

2 am a lover of art and science....so am not a novice of evolution theory...and i dont think i sound like a novice when expressing my veiws

3 i appreciate your response...i learn one or two from you.....

My own advice. ....as an eeducationst.....there is nothing like absolute true.. I study both creationist and evolutionist claim....i see where they both stand and both praticallly make sense...

There is nothing bad in learning from both sides....

vaxx:
The premises we are tacking here is on the complexity.... Not on the designer.... If you are interest in such a debate... We may open another thread on it....I think we should be focused.... The question is why is human brain complex ? an undoubted statement you accept...

Since you are currently working on the question I proposed...whatever you will be claiming may be falsified ..you even accept... As of now it is still an hypothesis.... And therefore it is not useful in this discussion...

It had none zero probability chance you claim? I will treat your claim as an assumption.... If not I will ask the questions again.... Why is our brain conscious and unconcious? Any tested resarch not your own project? You already accept science has limitations.... I am sure the original answer is the limitations of science..

I have a very clear understanding of evolution.... drug resistance is one and growth is another....my own stand here is evoluting from one species to another. Am aware of dog cross breading and likewise other animals....my point is From monkey like to human? Or from fish like to human?

Before evolution theory , there was nothing like any evidence suggesting we share common ancestor with apes...if there is one let me know....they have been so many evidence of DNA similarities between human and other mammals ....not only gorilla... There is a also evidence on fish .....

I already state no to the question....I clearly select no.... My question repeat itself again... If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey like , what is stopping them for tracing where my proto primate evolute from? You yourself already answer it. There is limitations....

I am confused for the lack of incomplete information in evolution theory... If the incomplete information is known. It will settle my doubt on the theory once and for all....as it is best, it is still a theory in crisis...

I am not anti science I repeat my self again...almost every animals and plant share a considerable amount of DNA similarities with human...Those that make every animal , plant and human of common ancestors? Your answer here will settle the argument...

vaxx:
I could not respond to your reply earlier enough... Someone who found my post a heart breaking report me yestatday....and I was banned for no good reasons.....

To your reply....

Why are you misinterpreting my statement... The hypothesis is on the complexity of the design not who design the brain to be complex...what we are testing here is the complexity not the designer....in a simple statement...it is the product we are testing not the manufacturer... If you get my question now...rephrased your questions to suit my claim....

I don't have a problem with human brain evolution...my qquestions is.... what is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain.?...unless you are suggesting our proto primate do not have counciousness brain from the start..

.am aware of the human brain evolution... It is shrinking from a size larger than football to the size of tennis ball....our ancestors brain is complex but not as complex to ours...read further.

http://news.discovery.com/human/psychology/shrinking-brains-intelligence-110207.htm........ the questions come again what Is the cause of consciousness and unconsciousness of the brain?

Since no evidence has invalidate that the laws were not design....why don't you give it a probability chance... May or may not....

you agree human will still evolute? Interesting.... Hopefully another million years according to the science trick formula.... Since we are not going to withness it in our own generation ....it is non of our interest....

If evolution can trace my proto primate to be monkey what is stoping it for giving me my first original ancestors.... Here , you are indirectly saying science has a limitation....it can't go beyond what it can't prove... That is true I also acknowledged it.......

Tbere is no existing evedience we share common ancestors with gorrila... It is evolution who uncover the unknown fact. And that make it evidence......

1.... Why will I reject the idea of sharing common ancestor with my 5th cousins... If there is enough evidence...?.

2...why will i reject scientific evidence...? I am not anti science..

3 my answer is yes to your questions...

I never reject evolution theory.... I only claim I am confused by the part of the claim they can't answer...

But not so quick...a new DNA test claim we share over 97.5 percent similarity with mice...do I also have to agree?

Empiree:
This last question is technical. This is where you need not just knowledge to counter but logical reasoning. So the logical answer is very simply. God is not a superman but creator. All he does is to command. God doesn't do anything that no longer make him God. He is above that.

Now to the issue if your free will, we all know God is all-powerful, and He is all knowing. Now if God possesses these attributes, and possesses these attributes to perfection, which is what we would expect from God, then He would naturally know everything that happens before they happen by virtue of His all knowing perfect knowledge. God does not need to wait until you do something for him to learn about it, if that were the case, that God didn’t know what you would do until you do it, this would then mean that God is not all knowing, and if God is not all knowing and is not perfect in his knowledge then he cannot be God. So again, based on the fact that God’s knowledge is perfect, that he knows everything, this means he also knows what you will do before you even do it because his knowledge is perfect.


So for example, God knew you would read this thread before you ever read it based on His perfect attribute of being All knowing, however so he didn’t force or compel you to read this thread. You by your own free will and choice, decided to come and read this thread, God simply knew you were going to read it before you read it, because he is All knowing, God didn’t need to wait until you read this thread to learn about the matter. Now even though God has already recorded everything that will happen, again this is based on His perfect attribute of knowledge, you yourself are not privy to that recorded document. So while God knows what you will do today, tomorrow, and next week, you yourself do not know. Hence people cannot use this as some excuse that their free will is somehow determined and they can’t really do anything because what will happen will happen, indeed what will happen will happen, but you don’t know what will happen now do you? Hence what happens is based on your choices, you can’t simply put your hands up and say ‘well hey my actions have already been recorded so who cares’ because you have no idea about your future actions, at the end of the day it’s your choices that are being made that lead to the actions you are doing. Paradise and Hell are created for a purpose. You choose which one you want base in your free will and actions. Nothing is written against you. The most important thing is Knowing God, Worshipping God, Thanking God, and making istighfar (ebe) rather than fill your heart with arrogance and ask silly questions

Raintaker:
why should I care about your question?

vaxx:
buterflyl1on argument close....if today his daughter accept to marry a dog ....he will gladly accept so far the law of the land accept it as moral now....dalaman it is not an intended insult ....it just a way to make the moral act of bestiality look shameful

jtigwell0:
Allah knows if you do this particular thing, you end up in hell, he doesn't want you to, but you chose to..

shaybebaby:
Example?