₦airaland Forum

hahn:
If you are a Christian, you are going to the Muslim hell
If you are a Muslim, you are going to the Christian hell
See you in hell

bennyann:
Talking about the use of legs as if you've never dreamt of flying .... You can decide to fly or walk or float, just take any form of movement you wish.

bennyann:
Talking about barber? My God! This is serious.

bennyann:
You will be so disappointed to find out there's food and even a place for leisure... What's the mansion for?

bennyann:

Akintom, this is your worse thread so far ( to me of course). I never thought of seeing you as a kid until now.

Let me list your problems
1. You want to use logic in heaven - everything will make sense to you because you will be your real self and not your carnal self where you would have to make research before. You would understand things better then. The real you will not be limited in mind. If God created us with a freewill why should He take it away after we've won the race?

2. You don't want to miss out on sex even in your next life, well there's a religion that offers that.

I'm tired of listing because the desires of your flesh is what has blinded you, as a result you believe the lies you just listed there.

Talking about the use of legs as if you've never dreamt of flying .... You can decide to fly or walk or float, just take any form of movement you wish.

Talking about barber? My God! This is serious.

You always claim you are intelligent but in this area, please leave it to the expert... Those who've been there already and you wouldn't even accept their descriptions. So you who haven't been there should just stop the lies.

It's a pity you know nothing about the beauty of heaven. Who has sold you such a lie? Do you know after enjoying heaven for a while, you'll continue the enjoyment elsewhere

You will be so disappointed to find out there's food and even a place for leisure... What's the mansion for?

Stick to what you know akintom. This area isn't for you at all.

Skeendyke you need to see this.

And as usual, since we know the whole lot of you in criticism, make sure you give proofs for all you put there before you take the next leap

Sapiosexuality:
My examples are false deductions but you can show how? What is even a false deduction?

No, I won't argue it as a theist. Your attempt to shift it and bring God into the discourse will not work. Seems that is what intelligence means to an atheist. You need admit theism to have their attention. Not here.

Sapiosexuality:
You are confusing yourself. You cannot dismiss a thing and affirm ignorance in the same sentence. E.g:

"That man is mad AND I wont say for sure he's mad", "The girl is a harlot AND I can't say she's a harlot", "That family is cursed AND I can't say they are cursed".

Sapiosexuality:
First, you reviewed it and found it unsubstantial but secondly you've no tools to review it and they linked together.

Sapiosexuality:
Who's talking about the burden of proof now? I thought we left that when you said Agnostic Atheism is your closest position.

Don't derail. We are still on agnostic atheism. You want to make sense but it has nothing on philosophy. Genius.

Why is this too hard for you? On what basis does this 'response position' make sense? Isn't this simple enough?

And don't throw that usual line of ad hominems that spend more than the words required to respond rationally responding pointlessly.

How is your 'response position' correct? You can use any tool you want: Astronomy, Philosophy, Etc. I don't see why you can't answer this.

Sapiosexuality:
A response position? So with what tools do we know that a 'response position' is rational? Is it beyond examination?

.

Sapiosexuality:
It is more than just an opinion. It is good we understand what we claim to be. The word agnostic atheist is grammatically and philosophically incorrect, so why still hold onto it?

Sapiosexuality:
You are a what? Fire! Brimstones! What!!!

The words agnostic atheism is a failure of English Language. You are either an Atheist, An Agnostic, A Theist, A Deist, A Panentheist, A Pantheist, A Godist, etc., not a combination of both.

Agnostic-atheist is transliterated to mean 'I can't know if there is a God and I know there's no God'. This is the sense you'd find in words like a Married Bachelor, an Engaged Single and an Islamic Christian.

Sapiosexuality:
You gave me a link which I perused but couldn't see any trace of my answer. You were arguing how atheism makes sense from the angle of the burden of proof.

The burden of proof for theism is left for theism with respect to theists. The burden of proof for theism is left to theists with respect to rational skeptics. Atheism does not pass the mark for rational skepticism.

A rational skeptic freely thinks. I've been gentle on you. You know, atheists don't just claim to belief in no God, they also claim there's no God and you'd lying to yourself pretending ignorance of this.

Factor that in. How then did he or she come to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God. Inadequate theists explanations? Now we are back to the bridge. Absence of evidence is neither presence or absence of existence.

Splinz:
Oga, stop fooling yourself. You said the mother "rationally suspected" the boy of hallucinating, based on ABSENSE of EVIDENCE.

Suspicion, however rational it may be, still doesn't change the fact that it is still SUSPICION!

Sapiosexuality:
Easy lines. It seems at this level your IQ does the Midas Touch with everything. What really is the problem:

'I present no philosophical point of mine, I'm dishonest, fraudulent or mischievous?'

Mr Atheist, is my crime simply that I called atheism a belief or what exactly?

Sapiosexuality:
See, he's ready to dwell on irrelevancies but can't continue.

Simple question, show me how Atheism is not more cancerous than the theism forced down our throats and of a sudden he selects who's beneath his intellect.

But you atheists stay here all day ridiculing folks and at the same time admit there place on the intellectual ladder is beneath your feet. What exactly changed now, Mr Atheist?

You opened a thread ridiculing people you assume are beneath your intellectual radar but you can't engage and ridicule a new lump of intellectual mischief? Isn't that a contradiction?

Of course you and I know the question is the problem. My stake is still open. You can share it among your atheists friends. Any one in this Forum, in Nigeria or anywhere who can show me how Atheism is logical I'd DEACTIVATE and pay you a sum.

Splinz:
Are you then using mere SUSPICION from the mother of the boy to conclude that the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE of other people in the flat is indeed EVIDENCE of ABSENCE?

Have you also consider the possibility of:

*Other people scaling the fence into the compound unknown to the mother except the boy?

*These intruders hiding somewhere in the flat unknown to the mother?

Remember, the mother is merely suspecting, not that it is an established FACT!

So then, ABSENCE of EVIDENCE in this case doesn't necessarily translate to EVIDENCE of ABSENCE because further investigations could prove that indeed, people did scaled the fence and entered the flat unknown to the mother.

BaEnki:
Hello,

You misunderstood my philosophical term, I'm not talking about mistakes here.

Sapiosexuality:
Is that so? Just like that? But if it were to be about God your ink will never spot any idiocy to illicit dryness.

If I had made it about the ineffectiveness of Religions you could spend lines cussing and the urge to let stupidity be will never get a pulse.

The only ground to quit at this point is that same one the theist is possessed with when he's struck out but his ignorance, haven taken quantum leaps, seeps out arrogance. It is self destructing. You've got no reasonable ground to quit now.

Pidgin2:
This is a sensitive topic. As a Christian, my personal opinion remains that it is very wrong for a male believer to be a gynecologist

1) Examining the breast of a woman that is not your wife as a heterosexual male is wrong
2) Examining the private parts of a female that isn't your wife is totally wrong
3) Some male doctors develop feelings for their patients and vice versa
4) Our sight is a gateway to temptation
5) If a woman examines the private parts of a male patient how will he feel, assuming he has a wife, how will she feel?

I can go on but let me stop here, it is wrong and no religions supports it

Sapiosexuality:
Seems I've thrown you a nice analogy. Very good. But then the mum doesn't know for a fact it's just the both of them in the room. She, just like the little boy, just believe so. Isn't that the position of atheism?

Now, the mum who also base her statement on just her belief in her high fence(not really a hundred percent house search) laughs at the boy for his disorientation, isn't this the surest indication for cancer?

Sapiosexuality:
Seems I've thrown you a nice analogy. Very good. But then the mum doesn't know for a fact it's just the both of them in the room. She, just like the little boy, just believe so. Isn't that the position of atheism?

Now, the mum who also base her statement on just her belief in her high fence(not really a hundred percent house search) laughs at the boy for his disorientation, isn't this the surest indication for cancer?

Sapiosexuality:
Your thread didn't say how absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Maybe you should read it again. You see, I stake my handle, if you can prove to me how Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence(How Atheism is Logical) I'd DEACTIVATE this account.

Sapiosexuality:
If in a hide-and-seek game, the one whose turn is it to search searches for his/her peers and couldn't find them, absence of evidence occur, would that form a rational basis for the evidence of absence? Explain.

Jeromejnr:
The OP is in bondage.

Sapiosexuality:
Logically, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Obviously you don't agree, so tell me, how is absence of evidence the evidence for which any rational thought be built for absence of existence?

If in a hide-and-seek game, the one whose turn is it to search searches for his/her peers and couldn't find them, absence of evidence occur, would that form a rational basis for the evidence of absence? Explain.

Omoluabi16:
You are in BONDAGE.

Sapiosexuality:
Twenty four words to criticize instead of a Yes or No.

From your definition(leave the unnecessary part) Atheism is just a Belief there is no God. Would I be wrong to say atheists, in defence of atheism, build their conclusions on "Faith" based premises?

Sapiosexuality:
Very good. So what atheism has is a 'BELIEF' and not a 'FACT' that there's no God? A simply yes will do.

Sapiosexuality:
Very good. I'm impressed.

It is not an illogical proposition in Atheism but Atheism is the illogical proposition. I've been thinking: 'If absence of evidence is not evidence of presence(or absence) on what ground is atheism logical?'

The question is, how was atheism arrived at from rational thought?

BaEnki:
Hello!

Arguing for or against any choice of belief can easily renders anyone an ignoramus which I've chosen to avoid, our views on the same topic are always subjective and parallel, you can call my house white while I see it as black, though in my mind based on my on definition.

If you find peace in whatever you do, continue doing it.

Pidgin2:
You are in bondage, you cannot do without criticizing Christians everyday, you are in bondage

Sapiosexuality:
Don't make it simplistic. I'm not arguing for God or for theism but questioning the basis on which any deluded person calls other deluded people deluded.

So, Mr Atheist, how is atheism a logical position? How is atheism not a worse display of arrogant ignorance?

Don't try to use God as your helping hand. Show me you are better than theists lime you claim to be. If theists are dumb how does an atheist know and still calls himself an atheist? Go on, you have the floor.

johnydon22:
is your brain any different from that of an atheist? so by using the question :are atheist brains intelligently designed" you are implying that somehow there is a difference between the atheist brain and yours.

so the question should be - is the brain intelligently designed?

them if you are ready for an intellectual discourse on that devoid of copy and paste then we can go from there.