₦airaland Forum

FOLYKAZE:
When atheists are put into a dark corner where they cant see Jesus/Mohamed, they only blab with their disturbing noise.


Agentofallah, finfayo, platteon, ya comrades cannot get a way through this:

Dude, you're boredom personified, get over yourself.

FOLYKAZE:
Orisha in english is god.

Yoruba spiritualist is a naturalistic pantheist. And an existence of god is very much present in the system.

You are very dodgy and have problem with comprehension.

In english definition of god, is an influencial man not a god?

Do you as an athiest disbelieve in the existence of god defined as influencial person?

You have gotten me to the point where I can't but be condescending towards you, because your stu.pidity is just as unrelenting as it is worrisome.

DEFINITIONS DEFINITION DEFINITIONS!!!

Polysemy: the ambiguity of an individual word or phrase that can be used (in different contexts) to express two or more different meanings. (Sync. Lexical ambiguity). (Princeton dictionary)

Equivocation Fallacy: The misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout. (Wikipedia excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------

For the umpteenth time, I don't care about the word 'god' or any other word for that matter, I care about ideas for which words are placeholders. No atheist (that I know of) denies the existence of influential persons, I couldn't care less if you or the dictionary calls them Sango, amadioha, Zeus, orisha, god or zebrudaya, that's your problem. Defining influential persons as god merely makes 'god' synonymous with 'influential persons'. This is not invalid, but it is superfluous. Yet, this definition of god is utterly independent of the more conventional meaning, which is a 'supernatural being'.

If you want to be extremely pedantic, you may argue that the word 'atheist' is derived from the Greek root words 'ἀ-' (prefix for without) 'θεός' (Theos), which translates to 'without god' (godless) in English. Hence, in the broadest sense of the word 'god' in English, atheist is a misnomer. Consequently, an atheist cannot exist literally (this is, I think, where your dissonance lies). But before you fall deeper into that trap, take note that in Greek, the idea of referring to influential persons as 'theos' does NOT at all exist. Theos is strictly used to define a supreme being with supernatural attributes. So when a Greek person uses that word, they know exactly what it describes, which is a person without belief in a supernatural being. The word was brought into the English language, carrying the same meaning and it continues to do so, even with the ambiguity associated with the English word 'god'. As a result, you cannot say atheists don't exist, or that the word is a misnomer, for that matter.

FOLYKAZE:
Atheism and god here is a english word. I think our discussion should be limit to english.

"Should be LIMITED to English"

If you wish to limit any discussion to English, you should probably limit your usage to its linguistic rules first, and stop behaving like an ignorant slob. A good starting point would be the Wikipedia page on POLYSEMY! I hope the 'Orisha' in you saves you from your supernatural nincompoopery.

Oh, and while you're at that, maybe also read on the FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

wiegraf:
It was the word 'pertinacious' that gave you away. No true agent of allah has had me reach for a dictionary

Edit*Oh wow. Just noticed I can't even type a.llah, ie all lower case. Let's see. jesus. allah. lol. So I can do that for jesus but not allah. muslims and their ediocy... special rules for only special them, it beggars belief....




Indeed, one could warrant that humanistic atheists in Norway believe man's godness.

It was a god-level pun (<-better than these silly attempts), I was just emphasizing that even if he did decipher it, the point's lost on him.

BTW, in northern 9ja at some time or the other DAFS referred to the females of our species that were stacked like DAF trucks. Why do you believe rats have big butts?






But true masters of the arts would be disappointed. They would like to believe that their (perceived) dim wittedness is a hell of a lot more subtle. That takes true skill and intelligence to pull off

Haha... You got me chuckling a little beyond my threshold of dignity. Your sense of humour has more than made up for time wasted on some knotty-pated slob.

starlingbawa:
I'm at a loss as to what the OP meant by 'FIGHTER SNAKES'. I'd appreciate if someone were to elaborate on this please

The snake challenged the soldiers to a Taekwondo duel and lost...obviously!!

Abmarshalo:
The Nigerian Military, during their counter attack against Insurgents in Bama, were not only faced with the challenges of littered land mines by the insurgents, they were also faced with the issue of fighter snakes deployed to poison our military officers.

However, these snakes were killed and here is a picture of a massive one killed during the mop up operation.

God Help our Army.

1) snakes are not poisonous, they are venomous. There's a huge difference!

2) Not all snakes are venomous, and pythons happen to fall in the category of non-venomous constrictors.

Op, get your facts right!

wiegraf:
@ShadyAgentOfAllah

Why do you think I'm shady?

If I may butt-in unsolicited, I think this would be much easier if you truly accepted this.

instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt. You'd receive a lot less

I'm used to unsolicited butts...not that I mind the butts
I have since accepted his predicament. I spent too much time in denial.

Even I am having a hard time following at times [s](though admittedly I am, as usual, rather high. Even at this time of day...)[/s]. Not that I'm some sort of genius, but next to folly, well...

My bad for communicating what I thought was a brilliant pun badly. It was basically a play on the word "god" (good in Norwegian), with the idea that atheists don't believe in god.

And no, he isn't trolling. Perhaps sadly, he genuinely believes what he posts....

He may not have committed to trolling, that doesn't make him any less a troll though. As I noted earlier, the dim wittedness is unmistakably troll-like.

folaski:
pls whats your guiding principle in life? no harm intended pls

What Davien said. Utilitarianism with a selfish tail end refined by my platinum rule; live and let live.

argon500:
Actually, I came across this on Facebook page, posted by Prince Adelekan Adeneye Ogbara. There are some of the points raised that are true, though not all.

1. Generator importation will stop.(They are the main dealers)
2. He will destroy their hard drug business.
3. He will tame the Robbers (80% of armed robbers in Nigeria are igbos)
4. There won't be breathing space for kidnappers
5. Baby factories will stop.
6. Fraud stars will be jailed.
7. Their Fake product won't sell anymore.
8. No space for oil bunkers
9. He will kill Corruption
10. He will revive Nigeria's Image from bad to Good. They don't want it to happen because of their biafra agenda. They claim to like GEJ more than his south south kinsmen. Criminals.

If you know of reasons why North and Southwest don't want Jonathan, you may list your point. I believe with this, we can be more honest to each other and adjust to our wrong doings.

Please no tribal attack, if you have reason to attack/commend any of the listed point, you are free to do so.

As for me, I agreed with the bolded post.

Op this is bigotry. I'm appalled!

folaski:
my dear friend, i have observed with interest that all you do is to try and find fault in other people's points

My dear friend, If I try to find faults in other people's points, maybe it is because I believe that points are so easy to make that they shouldn't be faulty.

and not that i agree with your points but you never advance points to prove that God does not exist on your own without reference to anybody's defence of his / her faith.

I needn't prove the non-existence of god any more than you need to prove the non-existence of a talking cow that flies. We just take it as a matter fact. Do a little reading on BURDEN OF PROOF and I'm sure you'll find that it is on the proponent of an argument, not the skeptic.

FOLYKAZE:
You aint mature enough pls if you cant do away with vulgar words and been abusive esp when you disagree with others.

1. Did I tell you I dont know what atheism is?

2. Can you show me how I mistook atheism as pantheism?

3. Atheism is a disbelieve in the existnce of god.

To a Yoruba spiritualist, a conscious being is a god.

A case that is noticeable in many world religion, man is considered severally to be a deity.

So an atheist telling those religion practitioner that god does not exist is equivalently saying man does not exist. The flaws on atheism here lies on definition of god. When god is defined as a conscious being or man, it is then not possible to deny the existence of man.

Atheists disbelieve in the existence of God/gods but the question is how do they define god?

God is super being, atheist could disbelieve in this god.

God is an influencial person, atheist, atheist disbelieving in the exist of this God is quite insane. How could someone disbelieve in the existence of god (defined as influencial person)?

So my point remain that atheism makes sense until god is defined as something which existential evidence cannot be dismissed. Ex, in a culture where snake is deified, would an atheist disbelieve in existence of deity (snake)?


I have explained myself enough

Your whole argument is predicated on an informal fallacy known as shifting the goalpost, and I'll show you how.

To begin, let's take a random subset of letters from the English alphabet. For the sake of this discourse, I'm using the first letters of my moniker, yours and Davien's. A, F and D. Now, we may string these letters into any abstract arrangement to form a word, with the only criterion being that the new word is pronounceable.

I choose DAF. I wish now, to make a claim about DAF's material attribute, and my claim is that DAF exists.

Naturally, you must be befuddled by now. "Has AgentOfAllah gone mad?", you may begin to ask. But of course not, silly. All rats are DAF, thus DAF exists.
What have I done? I have merely created a synonym for rats; a superfluous, pointless word. No doubt, easy to pronounce, but an ugly sounding coinage whose only practical application is to demonstrate the pointlessness of your argument to you. Yet, for all its pointlessness, DAF now exists as an abstract placeholder for a material entity (rats).

How then does this relate to your argument? Your Yoruba spiritualist friends, by defining the abstract arrangement of three letters (god) in such a way that it can only be seen as a synonym for mankind/human makes it a superfluous coinage that serves no additional purpose but to add more redundancy to a concept that already has an uncountable number of representations in the vast sea of existing words.

Of course, if you define 'god' so that it becomes just another synonym for man, nobody can reject the existence of god according to such a definition.

I wrote everything above to make the following point, so let's string things up into a nice coherent conclusion:

Atheism, is not a rejection of a specific abstract arrangement of letters or any of its attendant definitions, wishful or real, rather, it is the rejection of a specific concept or idea, which is the existence of a supernatural being, often abstractised using the colloquial placeholder; god.


If it makes you feel any better, I took the liberty to search if the same word exists in other languages and as it turns out, in Norwegian, good = god. Now, it will take an extremely persuasive argument to convince even the most pertinacious atheist that dogs can't be god!! I hope you feel god now?

davien:
Now do you believe he's a troll...

Yep

FOLYKAZE:
I am sorry, since you cant do without insult I will have to get my hand doing something better.

Cheers

I'm very sorry you think I'm insulting you. I made what I believed -still believe - to be a very fair assessment of your argument. It's stupid because you clearly mistook atheism for pantheism even when I gave you the exact definition of atheism from which your argument should proceed.

FOLYKAZE:
Atheism is all aboutexistence of god. However, god in atheism is not definitive with regard to a/some specific religion or spirituality. So we can assume that God in atheism cut across all religion and spirituality which Yoruba spirituality is not excluded because it does recognise existence of god too. So I very much think Yoruba spirituality is relevant in this dicussion.

This is without doubt, up there with the most idiotic arguments - if it can be called that - I have seen in my entire life. Can you define atheism?

davien:
AgentOfAllah, analyze FOLYKAZE's comments and you'll notice he's trolling....he's been trolling from the start....take a good look
He "doesn't get it", and yet considers your rebuttal an "irrelevant opinion"?

His dim wittedness is uncannily analogous to that of a troll.

FOLYKAZE:
Lol

I still dont get it.

Irrelevant opinion; I suppose not take it on with you any longer.

Is every individual not a god in yoruba spirituality?

Okay, let me bring it down a notch, hoping you might get it this time.

Answer me this, why is the opinion of the Yoruba spiritualist relevant to the atheist argument?

Before you proceed, you may assume that the atheist argument is that there is no evidence for god's existence. So what I really need you to do is to show me why this argument is flawed because some Yoruba spiritualist believes everybody is god.

For your argument to be sound, you must first show that the Yoruba spiritualist's definition of god is, in fact, THE acceptable definition of god.

Thanks and good luck.

FOLYKAZE:
Seriously apart from the insults, I dont understand your point.

FOLYKAZE Logic 101

Formal statement: Irrelevant opinions may be resorted to when establishing a logical truth.

Structure: {insert irrelevant opinion}, {insert consequential logical truth}

EXAMPLE 1: {To the Yoruba spiritualists, every individual is a god}, {so this creates flaws in the atheist arguments}.
EXAMPLE 2: {To me, FOLYKAZE is a pathological mo.ron}, {so this creates flaws in whatever defence he may invoke to prove me wrong}

I'm sure you can think of other examples.

FOLYKAZE:
A panpsycist defines god as a consciousness and deduced that everything is god.

And when an atheist tells panpsychist that god does not exist, the panpsychist would think they are mad.

To a pantheist, god is natural world. When atheist tell pantheist god do not exist, they would be classifed as insane folks.

When atheist tell a yoruba spiritualist that god does not exist, he will be looked at as a fool because to the yoruba, every individual including to the atheist is a god.

God existence in this three theological conception cannot be rule out and create flaws in atheism.

WTF??

To me, and probably every sane person who reads the above, FOLYKAZE is a pathological Mo.ron. As such, no matter how sound his arguments may be, any attempt to disprove his inanity should land on deaf ears because such arguments are naturally flawed by the definitive, sacrosanct and divine nature of the opinion I have expressed about his person.

There, I just proved atheists worship a god!

JaaizTech:
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/905/lsgjA6.png




Analysis has been done putting into consideration data from the 2011 election and general observation of the populace in 2015.

This crap has no statistical credence whatsoever. It is based on spurious speculations and should be disregarded. If this is the best a "Harvard specialist" - whatever that means - can come up with, then you'll be better served investing your kobo on discovering flying pigs!

folaski:
All human beings are religious without any exception. It is what they worship and how they worship that differs. For anyone to say he/she does not have a religion is not true. This is because we all hold ideologies or believes systems. For instance if you are a strong believer in Carl Max's philosophy of life, that will be the guiding principle that governs your life. So in a sense Carl Max is your god who's opinion guides your life. You have idolised him.

If you are so bound to anything or anyone then you have a god in them ad so you are religious.

Atheist take note : you have a god and a religion .

Op, take note that the broader your definitions, the more meaningless the subject of definition becomes. If I asked you who the president of Nigeria is, and you said "some guy", you will be technically correct, but of what use will your answer be to me?

So when you imply that religion may be defined as an ideology one is passionate about, there may be some technical truth to such a proposition, but then, it becomes superfluous and the meaning you then try to convey by the consequent claim, that is, all atheists are therefore religious is totally lost.

thehomer:
The Holy Spirit impregnated Mary without her consent.

OMG!!! That's spiritual rape, or sprape for short!! I hope holy spirit gets added to some sexual offenders list so children know to avoid the creep like a plague.

zico18:
I hope this gives other mentally derailed atheist reasons to believe in the existence of the supreme being.

I would rather live like there is a God and die to find out there isn't, than live like there is no God and die to find there is.

Permit me to take you up on your Pascal's wager. How does one live like there is a god?

A very stimulating read. This none determinism has very disconcerting implications for scientific endeavour, which at its core, is the need to predict.

I remember once observing the luminescence spectrum of a small material which I excited by laser beam. At first, its emission was highly intense reddish (680nm) light, so its spectrum seemed pretty deterministic. I could close my eyes and tell anybody that this material would shine red light if excited by laser of lower wavelength and this was true, as I repeated the experiment several times. However, something strange happened when I reduced the power of the laser beam. First I saw no emission whatsoever, then I realised I couldn't used the ccd camera in the conventional way, so I started to count indents of photons instead, and this same material had incidents of photons at every possible wavelength my camera could account for (uncertainty principle). Nevertheless, the photos still had a higher probability of emitting 680nm red light. So when I left the photon counting on for long enough, pictures resembling the deceptively deterministic portrayal I previously observed with the high power laser beam started to emerge again. I was a happy man, having demonstrated to myself, one of the most perplexing quantum mechanical postulations, but a bit sad to finally be convinced that determinism is a wicked illusion. Necessary for science to thrive, but quite easily debunked by the same science. Talk about nihilistic paradoxes

parisbookaddict:
The intention is to draw parallels between the verses on slavery as contained in the bible and quran(posts 1 and 2). To understand the practise 4000 years in antiquity and shade more light on the subject to folks like u who speak with little understanding on the subject..and often try to attack the bible

On December 10, 1948, the general assembly of the United Nations produced one of the finest documents ever to have been written on behalf of all humans; it is aptly named the universal declaration of human rights. Article 4 of this document states the following:

"No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms."

This declaration forms the basis for 21st century attitude towards slavery. So you must forgive me if I am not at all interested in the parallels and/or orthogonals you wish to draw between two books, both of which explicitly condone slavery; one of the 7th century and another whose compilation spans several centuries BC. I couldn't care less if the Quran asks you to hold a slave for 1,000,000 years and the bible tells you that 6 years is enough to own a slave. Both these books are outdated in this regard and to attempt defending any of them in this era is both preposterous and asinine. I apologise if I didn't make this clear enough the first time.

Maybe the message the OP wishes to pass across eludes me because I'm way past my lucid hours. At any rate, there is something terribly wrong if, in the 21st century, you're trying to justify the crude practice of slavery as recorded in the bible.

I have nothing against the people who practiced it in the past. They didn't know better. How could they when their best judgements were informed by tools that were limited to perfunctory observations? My problem is with retrogrades like the op and other religionists who believe in the infallibility of historical figures who, by now, should have vanished into the forgotten pages of time, but instead, have their anachronistic and absurd teachings constantly and compulsively defended against every sense of reason and decency.

On the other hand, if the op is inviting me to partake in the pointless debate of which holy book appears more lenient to slaves, then I should clearly state that I find as much amusement in such a discussion as I would find in pondering over whether it is better to steal N1,000 or N10,000. As you may have rightly guessed, such discussions are neither productive nor interesting.

mekaboy:
This one buhari is running around seeking the support of the west, i am sure he has promised them change to get their support.

Does it mean he will also change our stand or homosexuality? Since he is anti-jonathan.

What is "our" stand on homosexuality? Speak for yourself, maybe

ayindejimmy:
He doesn't have to declare it publicly. Doing that is only taking a step further. Once he has declared it... Whether publicly or secretly, the FOI law will take over from there. Which means if it's somewhere the press can make It public for the benefit of doubting Thames

Great, we're on the same page then, eh?

ayindejimmy:
Personally, I don't agree with the president that declaration of assets is a matter of principle, on the contrary it is a legal mandate. Sec 11(1) of the code of conduct for public officers, Part 1, fifth schedule of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is clear and unambiguous on this point.

http://constitutionforall.com.ng/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/15/mr-president-to-declare-asset-or-not-to-declare-asset


Declare your assets, Sagay advises Jonathan

http://www.punchng.com/politics/declare-your-assets-sagay-advises-jonathan/

Satisfied?

Thanks. Just for clarity, the president never said he wouldn't declare his asset, he said he wouldn't declare it publicly; and according to the section you have shared, a public officer is only required to submit this declaration to the CCB, not to declare it publicly. So we are in agreement that Oga Jona didn't violate the constitution in any way, I think.

AlBaqir:
You can add me on my facebook page perhaps we can open a dialogue there.

There would be no need for that. I've been *forced converted* by Nairaland. We can now engage in this thread if you're still interested.

pacesetter939:
This is what we call leadership by example, not that drunk creek bigot who publicly said "he doesn't give a damn about asset declaration" and the same shoeless man is now directing us (all federal workers) to fill and submit our asset declaration form.

He never said said he wasn't going to fill his asset declaration form, what he said, albeit crassly, was he wouldn't publicly declare it. I'm sure the former, he did. So this point is moot.

urboy1:
(((((Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.), said he would publicly declare his assets and liabilities, ''if voted into power''.)))))

I agree with you... Buhari on the other hand is saying he will declare.. IF HE WINS.. SO I AM ASKING.. WHY DONT HE DECLARE BEFORE EVEN GOING FOR THE ELECTION... Makes no sense to me...

You're not making any sense.