₦airaland Forum

OpenYourEyes1:
Makes no sense.

How about
Proofs of God include:

1. Church
2. Bible
3. Moses
4. John

Why don't you explain some of them. I want the proofs from you not google...

No, you're the one making no sense.

The church is a building, the Bible is a book of fairytales and what nots, Moses and John are most certainly fictional characters.

I'm not going to explain none of those as I'm clearly not responsible for your education or your apparent lack of it.

Oh and Google doesn't "provide" answers, it's merely a search engine which links the user to carefully conducted research pages.

XxSabrinaxX:
@Bolded: Classic fallacy of generalization example.

I'm not even going to reply to such an illogical post. You should have just passed.

He's not worth it.

OpenYourEyes1:
IQ means nothing my friend. The man with the highest IQ is a bouncer.

IQ does not mean creativity.
If it does, creative people like Einstein wouldn't be dropping out of school. It is a known fact that creative minds do not do too well academically.


Einstein was religious by the way.

I agree with you to some extent.

Einstein was religious but not as many people think.

OpenYourEyes1:
Why don't you show them proofs of evolution maybe that will make the theory believable.
Show us some proofs.

Proof of evolution include:

1. Fossil records
2. Comparative anatomy.
3. Embryology
4. Biogeography.


A simple Google search could solve these problems but there I helped you. If you need articles you can signify.

XxSabrinaxX:
Exactly. Well done, bro

Cheers, my godless lady.

The chat in the fourth picture got me cracked up seriously.... TWITTER. Lmao.. MAD!

ZoeyJ:
oh you can buy the food for 120k?

You seem to have misunderstood my response.

GoodMuyis:
[s][/s]

Your Head is not good on your neck with the nonsense you post.
without a doubt, This is one of the of the most thoughtless things I use to hear from an atheist in a long time.
Classifying atheist as superior to not theist is Foolishness Of All Time FOAT, don't do that again

You just confirmed my initial premise with your uncivil response. But I'll still attend to you.

Do you need links for unbiased materials for my OP? Then here they are:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/science/atheists-more-intelligent-than-religious-people-faith-instinct-cleverness-a7742766.html%3famp


https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.livescience.com/59361-why-are-atheists-generally-more-intelligent.html


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/the-human-beast/201005/the-real-reason-atheists-have-higher-iqs%3famp


Moreso, the ability to accept the truth (even if you're too dumb to internalise it) without resorting to cheap insults is an indication of a bright mind. Which you clearly seem to not have.

TAO11:
Smiles ...

Regarding your remark about burden of proof, you obviously have a muddled understanding of what this beautiful philosophy says, as well as how it is applied.

This specific misunderstanding of onus probandi is very widespread and not unique to you.

Contrary to what you may have believed, onus probandi does not, in any way, shape, or form, require that a claim, assertion, or allegation has to be positive for it to be applicable.

Regardless of the form a claim or assertion takes, the burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim or assertion.

If a negative claim is made, then the burden of proof lies with whoever makes it; and if it's a positive claim, then the burden of proof lies with whoever makes it.

The only exception (when these two kinds of claims may not put a burden of proof on the two kinds of persons at the same time) is in a legal proceeding where a party called the claimant makes a claim, assertion, or allegation (e.g. a positive claim) which impinges on another party called the defendant (whose position is naturally the negation of the claimant's position. i.e. a negative claim in this scenario).

In a situation like the foregoing (where another party is legally affected), the party with the negative assertion (i.e. the defendant in this example) have no obligation to disprove the claimant's position. The burden of proof lies with the party who alleges.

But in the context of a claim or assertion that has no impingement on anyone else (just like the one we're both considering here), the burden of proof lies with whoever makes a claim or assertion, be it a positive claim or a negative claim; a first claim, or a counter claim.

The sun is never going to die off --- a negative assertion. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim.

The sun will surely die off someday --- a positive assertion. The burden of proof lies with whoever makes the claim.


Coming to the specific claims in eliash11's comment and yours.

He had made a claim to the effect that juju works.

He made the claim without any undeniable evidence. In fact, without any evidence whatsoever.

The absence of evidence for his claim implies that you or me (or anyone else for that matter) are under no kind of obligation to trust his claim or conclusion as true or fact.

However, where you're missing the point is that you've stretched the absence of evidence for his claim beyond its limit.

You went on to conclude to the effect that his claim or conclusion (that juju works) is false as he couldn't provide evidence.

To conclude as you did here is to comit a fallacy known in argumentation as argumentum ad logicam or the fallacist's fallacy.

The most that can be concluded from the absence of evidence for his claim is that we have no reason to trust his claim as true. Hence, his claim is no more than an assumption, supposition, or hypothesis, until he provides, not just any evidence but, convincing evidence to substantiate it.

But you went a step further to assert that his claim is false. There is a huge gap between these two. In fact, this latter claim (that his claim is false) is itself an assertion requiring convincing evidence for it to be true. Otherwise it itself is no more than an assumption, supposition, or hypothesis.


Having demonstrated that your claim is itself an assertion requiring proof for it to be true, it will be quite fair that I mention that you made what looks like an attempt to provide evidence for your claim.

You alluded to a number of instances (obviously a FINITE number) in your personal experience where seemingly persuasive "stuffs" turn out to be smart tricks.

However, to present these FINITE number of PERSONAL experiences as evidence for your general claim that (juju doesn't work) is to comit a fallacy known in argumentation as hasty generalization.

Induction (which is what your argument boils down to) is a weak form of argumentation. It thus still leaves your claim (that juju doesn't work) at the level of assumption, supposition, or hypothesis.

Do I need to remind you that he needs to produce just on verified instance or evidence to prove his claim; while you, on the other hand, need to produce an infinite number of disproved "stuffs" (considering your induction approach) to prove your own claim?

I really hope that you are now able to see my point that your claim (just like eliash11's claim) is no more than an assumption, and my argument is obviously certainly not an attack on a straw man.

A long post, made an interesting read. But YET AGAIN, FAILED TO MAKE THE CUT.

While the burden of proof usually lies with the claimant, it becomes that of the defendant as soon as the claimant meets his burden.

In this case, I made the initial claim in my OP that Rituals do not work and I have provided some degree of evidence in that we have ritual shrines everwhere and news of ritual killings (indicating the prevalence of rituals) yet we remain the world's poverty capital.


My friend on the other hand quoted me and thereafter failed to make any reasonable objection of any sort. He resorted to asking if I had ever seen anyone coughing out money. Which is one of the weakest points ever raised in defence of rituals I have always heard. (Even if I did, how will I know the victim hadn't physically swallowed the buck beforehand?)

As such, my comment is NOT an assumption. But a fact. Which remains to be disproved by anyone who believes in rituals (Including you) by providing convincing evidence.

Till then, keep your peace.

//Assumption: Noun

The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; a supposition; an unwarrantable claim.//

//Fact Noun

An objective consensus on a fundamental reality that has been agreed upon by a substantial number of experts.//

eliash11:
seeing is believing...i pray u see for yourself...but I also pray you would not be the victim

//Seeing is believing//

I can't believe a theist is actually saying this.

So have you seen God? Since you believe in him?

GoodMuyis:
Then Atheist should get-off from God discussion. But No They Wont,
They dont believed in science, but to prove science they give excuses for failure mtchew

Atheists should get off from "God" discussion in the same manner doctors should not get involved in treating diseases or interacting with the sick.

The same way the rich should not meddle in the affairs of the poor or vice versa.

The same way people with healthy cars should never stop to assist people with flat tires beside the road.


//They don't believe in science, but to prove science they give excuses for failure//

That nonsense up there is without doubt one of the most thoughtless things I've heard from a theist in a fairly long time.

BeansAndBread:
This isn't true as atheists have always tried to provide answers to these questions.



Why do you lack belief in God despite the fact natural inclination of man throughout generations tends to acknowledge there's a supreme being.

Atheists trying to provide answers to these questions the same way accountants often wonder how a car works. The latter doesn't make accountants, mechanics, does it?

SOME Atheists may try to deduce answers to creation, or how climate change happens or how Blockchain works. That's what they prefer to do albeit outside the initial scope of Atheism itself.

So again, I reiterate, Atheism is a complete lack of belief in all 4200+ gods. No more no less.

DavidLion:
You don't seem to know that these things existed before the advent of western education.

Before "western education" we also thought the earth is flat.
We now know we were wrong then. What's your point?

TAO11:
nb: your idea that it's not real could also equally be an assumption. in fact it is an assumption, given the argument you adduced.

actually, the assertion that it's NOT real is more of an assumption than the opposite assertion because it is more difficult to prove a negative assertion.

if he has not produced one single observed, verified and confirmed case where it actually worked, then his statement that it works is no more than an assumption.

but on the otherhand, the fact that you've observed and witnessed a FINITE number of different stuffs that looks real but turns out in reality to be smart tricks is no evidence that EVERY single "similar" stuff out there is not real.

your conclusion that it's not real is thus a weak one as that is a typical characteristic feature of an inductive argumentation, thus leaving your conclusion also at the level of assumption.

WRONG. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive assertion. Saying I'm making an assumption in my original reply is a straw man argument, as whatever can be ascertained without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

There's no reliable proof to validate the efficacy of rituals and so it is mostly false and based on hearsay and/or anecdotes. Which is typical of certain theistic bullcrap.

Atheism does NOT offer an explanation for how the earth came to be. Atheism does NOT explains how life came to be.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in all gods, goddesses and deities. No more no less.

ZoeyJ:
everything in that plate is not more than 1k

People buy super inflated goods like these all the time. Especially in urban areas.

Larryfest:
She actually meant she + food = 120k but even den sef e still too cost..

Baaaad mannn.... You sabi + lodging fees.
Flesh and blood hadn't revealed this to you.

hundredrivas:
Rituals dont work.But the people just believe blindly in it we need a complete brain wash of the populace as 60% of nigerians believe in this fabu.This is the time to start attacking the native doctors as they are the ones asking for human heads and body parts.God punish devil.

I think the educational system is mostly to blame for this. A lot of so-called "teachers" who are supposed to teach kids without bringing their own religious affiliations to the system can't do that.

And this is what we have. Objective thinking is STILL the way forward for any society that wants to progress.

eliash11:
i believe u are saying this because you have not seen someone coughing money...i will just assume you are not that expose

Assumption is the weakest form of knowledge sir.

I have watched shows where people "cough" out sharp objects like blades and knifes. Aaand Guess what? They're called TRICKS.

It's a facade. An illusion. Make believe. Nothing of such is actually the way they seem.

Money is simply a collateral for solving problems in the society. Any other means of acquiring money is A FAT LIE.

RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK.
RITUALS DON'T WORK!

Ritual shrines everywhere yet we are the Poverty capital of the world. Delusional lots.

ElidaxZiel:
Atheist are dummy as Bleep

you claim there is no God, yet you cant explain things around !

I think your Watery brain, should be able to tell you, there is an Intelligent force behind it

BUT NO ! They think they are smart ! lmao

If Tsunamis, Earthquakes, Floods, Lightning killing innocent people. Apex predators, People born with deformities every now and then. And a nature that wants 5 out of 7 children to die on average IS YOUR DEFINITION OF an Intelligent creation.

Then you're a delusional bigot who needs their brain checked.

THE BASIS OF RELIGION ISN'T FAITH IT IS FEAR.

How Could Jesus have died for your sins? When he's immortal??

Stop making a big deal out of it. Nope. He only took a weekend vacation.

Anybody would take that deal. Take a rest from heaven for three days and resume back a tad more powerful.

Myopic post.

Sad story. What caused the accident? Oh I forgot this is Nigeria.

Let's say RIP to the dead and move on.

Religion has got people failing to take responsibility for their own actions. And blaming non existent deities for it.

This is a perfect case of what religion does to the average person's mind. Overrides logical and objective thinking.

Falz is the FELA of our time. Those ones that are smoking cheap weed are just wasting their time.

As usual, unsupported bickering from theists that have no single proof or evidence of any sort.

orisa37:
Atheists should read this.

I have read it and it's just the usual bullcrap from theists. I see that all the time. Anecdotes are the weakest form of evidence.

Starving yourself off good food just to change the mind of your omniscient god? Shame.

donmarvex1:
Those days of PS2.. PES.
Player takes a shot and misses from close range...

Commentary: " How did he miss that! how did he miss that from the 6 yard box, he should have scored from there!"

Jon: "He didn't even hit the barn door let alone the corner flag"

Jim: "I think he'll be a lil bit pleased with that effort, given he was slightly off balance"

Jon: "I am Jon Champion and alongside me is top football analyst, Jim Beglin"

Jim: "Hi Jon, hello everyone it feels great to be here. Let's hope these teams meets up to all our expectations."

Jon: "So, a meeting of giants; what do you make of this contest Jim?"

Jim: "This could all come down to who finds their rythm first"

Jon: "Camera flashes from all corners of the stadium amidst huge expectations, let's hope that the game itself matches this build up" �

sweetrace:
You don’t have to share the beliefs of others to respect them.

Asinine beliefs need to be mocked.

yehmy:
2-3 in favor of Arsenal

I have a multi correct score wager on that already. Hope it comes through.