₦airaland Forum

Blogthug:
I feel your pain.


testing testing

I had problems reading your response, but it's harder to explain how it is done.

Ok let's see[/quote]Let me give it a try.

Use "[/quote]

ScepticalPyrrho:
Lol.

I feel your pain.[/quote]testing testing

I had problems reading your response, but it's harder to explain how it is done.

Let me give it a try.

Use "[/quote]

ScepticalPyrrho:
This is what I addressed in my OP.

It replies your question.

u proved my point, u can't claim to lack belief in God, you only disbelief in God, but u forget one important thing, God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and intelligent life, there is to argument or evidence for your disbelief in God

You can make thousands of excuses, reasons, arguments for the existence of god(which I'm very good at), but the objects of human knowledge remains what we can prove substantially.[/quote]u can't prove God's inexistence either, in fact there is no reason to think the universe wasn't intended coz all available evidences points to the fact that our universe would need a creator, a law Giver, God
.

If you want to gain knowledge "education" on a subject matter, learn to avoid sentimental authors.[/quote]which sentimental authors did I quote? I only showed u a link with various dictionary definition of atheism, forget about the name of the site and just go see the definitions of atheism from various dictionaries , not asking u to read the site owners opinion
.

The best place to find the proper definition of concepts is in its philosophical definition.[/quote]aha! if u have done your home work, u will discover that philosophical definition of atheism isn't a lack of belief in God, is a denial or disbelief in God not gods ( take note of the G and see image below

I'll do that, but still learn to be sincere to your intellect in your quest for knowledge.[/quote]I don't know what your are talking about here
I'm not aware of such unison in all religious god-claim.[/quote]this is because you have been ignorantly making the category of grouping God with god's , God's capitalization is important because it denotes a different category of being ascribed to be the creator of the universe and origin of intelligent life but describes and named differently by various religions Eledumare, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu all Same God, get it?

I made a topic on this, u can read more from my post.
As a matter of fact, those God's discribed always seem to have characters similar to the culture they emanate from.[/quote]God is not a god, again different category of being, all (g)ods are not ascribed to creating the universe.
Like the Judaism god, happens to love the Jews than any other race. Allah is also somewhat presented as having bias against other non-allah worshippers.
Brahman isn't even a deity, according to Hindu belief system. They have a more pantheistic perception of Brahman.[/quote]by definition Brahman is God, the perception doesn't matter, even Christians believe in Trinity

So, your instance is wrong. Nature, as a scientific concept, is not as diverse in meaning, character or sentiments as all the thousands of religious gods.[/quote]dead Wrong, no two scientist would describe Nature the same way, but they won't ask which Nature, u think there is sentiments because u ignorantly classified God and gods as the same thus making a category error fallacy, visit my post on the topic

Have you disproved it? .[/quote]tu quoque fallacy, u made the claim so u prove it
Something more objective, verifiable, concrete, justifiable, substantiable like other things we claim to have knowledge of.[/quote]do u require this for for everything you believe in or only when it comes to God? if it's only for God then u are a hypocrite, what evidence do u have for other peoples minds or consciousness existing without presupposing they must exist ?
do u also believe that our present technology can prove the supernatural being called God? or do u imagine God to be a physical being? or do u assume materialism is all we have? if yes, mathematics and logic? what about the mind? do u have a mind? and isit material ?

Where did you get your stats from?
.[/quote]it's from a research of coz, daily mail also published that, reseach more on it.

Besides, knowledge have been passed on through learning, studying, research, tests and observation.[/quote]do u think the scientific method is the only way we can have knowledge? how about logic?

Not everyone on the planet knows that there is such a thing as a solar system.
It will be a fallacy of argumentum ad populum to accept a thing as true because majority BELIEVES it is so.[/quote]nope, I was only showing u that, if the research is true, it means u as an atheist have a poor brain function, and no matter what evidence theists present for the existence of God, u will reject it incredulously
there is also a way to justify your disbelief in Gods inexistence as True, see the picture below , if u can't then ur disbelief in God is by faith and nothing more

enshy:
You are indeed 4ever God's!
You are wise my man!

please can u show me how to insert comments between comments while quoting? I suck at it

ScepticalPyrrho:
"belief backed up by fact"?

why are you having problems presenting this facts?

You just wasted a whole lot of energy trying to present a thing believed to be factual.

"Belief" isn't needed when it is fact.

do u believe belief isn't needed when its a fact?

and what fact do u have for the inexistence of God?

(please I didn't know how to comment on your comments so I made a mess, please see the comment above and respond thanks)

ScepticalPyrrho:
I used to believe that God exists until I scrutinized my thoughts independent of the dogmas of religious teachings and objectively.

I don't believe God exists as all the arguments I could come up with lack evidential basis.

With further research and learning on the subject matter, I realized that there is a clear distinction between believing in the existence of God, and whether or not there is such a thing.

For instance, I've never really perceived God, like most people, but I believed anyway.

I tried to rationalize or give reasons why God should exist.

Bottom line, which I sincerely can't deny is this; No matter how strongly I may have believed, or wished it to be. There is no knowledge of God, but only belief.

u proved my point, u can't claim to lack belief in God, you only disbelief in God, but u forget one important thing, God is the best explanation for the origin of the universe, and intelligent life, there is to argument or evidence for your disbelief in God



You can make thousands of excuses, reasons, arguments for the existence of god(which I'm very good at), but the objects of human knowledge remains what we can prove substantially.[/quote]u can't prove God's inexistence either, in fact there is no reason to think the universe wasn't intended coz all available evidences points to the fact that our universe would need a creator, a law Giver, God


If you want to gain knowledge "education" on a subject matter, learn to avoid sentimental authors.[/quote]which sentimental authors did I quote? I only showed u a link with various dictionary definition of atheism, forget about the name of the site and just go see the definitions of atheism from various dictionaries , not asking u to read the site owners opinion


The best place to find the proper definition of concepts is in its philosophical definition.[/quote]aha! if u have done your home work, u will discover that philosophical definition of atheism isn't a lack of belief in God, is a denial or disbelief in God not gods ( take note of the G and see image below

I'll do that, but still learn to be sincere to your intellect in your quest for knowledge.[/quote]I don't know what your are talking about here

I'm not aware of such unison in all religious god-claim.[/quote]this is because you have been ignorantly making the category of grouping God with god's , God's capitalization is important because it denotes a different category of being ascribed to be the creator of the universe and origin of intelligent life but describes and named differently by various religions Eledumare, Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu all Same God, get it? I made a topic on this, u can read more from my post.

As a matter of fact, those God's discribed always seem to have characters similar to the culture they emanate from.[/quote]God is not a god, again different category of being, all (g)ods are not ascribed to creating the universe.

Like the Judaism god, happens to love the Jews than any other race. Allah is also somewhat presented as having bias against other non-allah worshippers.

Brahman isn't even a deity, according to Hindu belief system. They have a more pantheistic perception of Brahman.[/quote]by definition Brahman is God, the perception doesn't matter, even Christians believe in Trinity


So, your instance is wrong. Nature, as a scientific concept, is not as diverse in meaning, character or sentiments as all the thousands of religious gods.[/quote]dead Wrong, no two scientist would describe Nature the same way, but they won't ask which Nature, u think there is sentiments because u ignorantly classified God and gods as the same thus making a category error fallacy, visit my post on the topic


Have you disproved it? .[/quote]tu quoque fallacy, u made the claim so u prove it

Something more objective, verifiable, concrete, justifiable, substantiable like other things we claim to have knowledge of.[/quote]do u require this for for everything you believe in or only when it comes to God? if it's only for God then u are a hypocrite, what evidence do u have for other peoples minds or consciousness existing without presupposing they must exist ?

do u also believe that our present technology can prove the supernatural being called God? or do u imagine God to be a physical being? or do u assume materialism is all we have? if yes, mathematics and logic? what about the mind? do u have a mind? and isit material ?

Where did you get your stats from?
.[/quote]it's from a research of coz, daily mail also published that, reseach more on it.

Besides, knowledge have been passed on through learning, studying, research, tests and observation.[/quote]do u think the scientific method is the only way we can have knowledge? how about logic?

Not everyone on the planet knows that there is such a thing as a solar system.

It will be a fallacy of argumentum ad populum to accept a thing as true because majority BELIEVES it is so.[/quote]nope, I was only showing u that, if the research is true, it means u as an atheist have a poor brain function, and no matter what evidence theists present for the existence of God, u will reject it incredulously

there is also a way to justify your disbelief in Gods inexistence as True, see the picture below , if u can't then ur disbelief in God is by faith and nothing more

ScepticalPyrrho:
Since the first day I began engaging in the arguments for the existence of God, never have I seen any person(s) display such a cowardly and hypocritical request like that of the theists here on NL which I find highly disgraceful.

It is the shameful attempt by christians and other religious persons to switch the burden of proof to those who from the onset have declared their lack of believe in the existence of their God(s) on the basis of lack of evidence.

This dishonesty have come to be the last resort for rendering meaningful discussions and intelligently progressing arguments useless.

My stance as an atheist have been further strengthened and arguments have become distasteful.

"I lack believe in Yahweh or any other god's existence owing to the absence of proofs"

But before you theists demand for a proof for the inexistence of Yahweh/Orunmila... it is important to clarify the atheistic position.

Atheist simply lack the belief in the existence of God(s)!

Perhaps, the above notion have been misinterpreted to mean the believe in the inexistence of God, that is wrong.

Can I say you believe in the inexistence of SantaClaus, Peter Pan, Ojuju-Calabar, Mamiwater, Bigfoot, Tooth Fairies, Dragons, Vampires etc? No. Because it would mean that you've had evidences to show it exists but chose to believe otherwise. This isn't the case.

I implore you to provide evidences for the existence of the God you believe in. The burden is on you who dedicate so much time to an "idea", not the other way round.

If you can't, it's fine. I will accept that you have chosen to believe even in the absence of proofs.

No one can judge you for believing in anything. But don't present it to us as if they are proven facts. And don't expect us to prove the inexistence of something held unto by mere belief.

lol these meme nairaland atheists never seize to amaze me with their ignorance

OP, be honest to yourself and answer these questions

1. were you once a God believer? if Yes, how do u go from believing in God to " lacking a belief " ? the definition of atheism according to OED is lack of belief or disbelief in God, in your case since u once believed in God, the " lack of belief definition isn't for you, because you only disbelief in God, and disbelief in God comes with a burden of proof since you mean GE is false and your proposition GOD DOES NOT EXIST is true. so provide contrary explanation for Origin of universe, life, morality.

2. Are you aware that there are more dictionary that don't define Atheism as " lack of belief " are more than those that do? do u also believe u have a lack of belief in God? (see below link) if so then u made an ambiguous claim about definition of atheism hence a fallacy

https://atheismisdead.com/2016/12/29/the-definition-of-atheism/

3. Are u aware that the " lack of belief" redefinition of atheism by late former Atheist philosopher Anthony flew (later abandoned atheism for Deism) was an Etymological Fallacy? (read it up)

4. Are you also Aware that there is only one God though described differently by different religions ( Yahweh, Allah, Brahman, Tao) just like how Nature is described differently by scientists but non would ask another Which Nature?

5. "The burden of proof is on those that that dedicate so much time to the idea " is itself a claim, can you prove this?

6. what kind of evidence For God are you looking for?

7. if u claim to lack evidence of God and 95% of humanity isn't, don't u think you're the one with learning disability ? as it has been scientifically proven that atheists use less brain function , links :

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_the_brain
https://americanvision.org/12630/atheists-embarrassed-study-proves-atheism-uses-less-brain-function/


answer these questions, then we proceed

Niflheim:
@op,

Is this the Watson you were referring to? Did Watson say that the christian god "created" DNA? Why are you lying like this?

that's a strawman and presuppositional fallacy, show me where I said Christian God created DNA in my argument, or are u visually impaired? funny how u even assumed I'm a Christian how Atheist of you

1.The luckiest thing that ever happened to me was that my father didn't believe in God, and so he had no hang-ups about souls---James D. Watson[/quote]appeal to authority fallacy

2. One of the greatest gifts science has brought to the world is continuing elimination of the supernatural, and it was a lesson that my father passed on to me, that knowledge liberates mankind from superstition. We can live our lives without the constant fear that we have offended this or that deity who must be placated by incantation or sacrifice, or that we are at the mercy of devils or the Fates. With increasing knowledge, the intellectual darkness that surrounds us is illuminated and we learn more of the beauty and wonder of the natural world---James D. Watson[/quote]appeal to authority fallacy as well, these guys are scientists not philosophers, try again !

thehomer:
Yes you are confused and you've shown so far is that your confusion arises whenever you see the word "code". The first article tells you DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code, the second article does the same. What you've also shown is that humans can represent it as code. What you've not shown is the God you think is behind it.

it's like I'm talking to a wall, u keep repeating this " humans can represent it as code" who is suppose to represent it as a code? your village juju? look if u discover something edible and nutritious in your backyard that no one has discovered before, won't it be categorized as food ? of coz u will because it fits description of food,pls try to think with that brain of yours.

"what you've not shown is the God u think is behind it" that's a strawman, my argument was for intelligent design try again

thehomer:
It is difficult responding to your post due to your poor punctuation but I'll try anyway.
You're confused and have no idea of what you're talking about. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. What you're revealing is that you're confused because the word "code" is used.

no I'm not confused but you rather have just exhibited full blown ignorance about DNA, let me spoon feed u abit , thank me later

https://www.nobelprize.org/educational/medicine/gene-code/history.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Organic/gencode.html

thehomer:
Yes me, and the dictionary. You want me to do your work for you for some reason. If you think all communication is code, then you need to actually show it to be the case. e.g is one person waving at another person code for something? How about someone nodding their head in agreement? Or are birds nests also code? How about lions stalking their prey? Is that code too?

Something you dont' seem to understand is the fact that something can be represented as code e.g a DNA sequence of physical molecules, doesn't make the molecules code. The molecular sequence comes first. The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding.

So, you need to do the work to show that all communication is actually code.

from your statement " The notion of a code is imposed by humans for ease of understanding " it shows u don't even know what u are talking about. who should name it a Code ? a god? words were invented by humans and understood by humans to mean specific things , codes are hidden language, words or signs used in passing specific information that must be decoded by the receiver , Scientists called the way dancing bees communicate a code because it fits the description of a code which makes it a code just like Morse codes, u don't have to like it, your being incredulous won't help u gain true knowledge , and I choose to believe the words of experts and scientist rather than believe a random Nairalander who has some ignorant opinion

Niflheim:
@op,

These are your words: "All codes of known origin is a product of intelligence"..........................................................What about the genetic code that gives rise to "Down's syndrome?

the genetic codes is still DNA, and it's origin is Unknown, saying it is will be ambiguous and will demand u to provide evidence for such Huge claim , No one has explanations or evidences for its origin, just mere baseless assumptions, mathematically , in fact the chances of DNA coming together randomly is 1 in 10 ^300 , No wonder Watson and crick who won Nobel Prize for discovering the information process in DNA describes it as a miracle .

the DNA code was inferred deductively to also be a product of intelligence based on the validity of the 1st and 2nd premise of the argument except u can refute the argument if u can name a code of known origin to have been produced sans intelligence , until then the argument remains valid

thehomer:
Your argument fails rather obviously.

p1. All codes of knownn origin are a product of human intelligence.
p2. DNA is a physical molecule that can be represented as code. Codes are symbolic representations not molecules.
Therefore, your argument is unsound.

Note that bee communication is not code in this sense. All you're doing is failing by equivocation.

who says it's not a code, you? do u even understand the meaning of codes? or what makes sometime a code? u should research on that first

UyiIredia:
Well said. That is one of the flaws I earlier suggested.

that's not a flaw, except u can name a code of known origin produced sans intelligence , if u can't then the conclusion is inferred and the argument is valid

Kay17:
Deductive reasoning doesn't guarantee the truthfulness of the conclusion rather it ensures its logical validity.

I think the key proviso "known origin" used in your major premise ought to follow up to the conclusion

coz u think doesn't make it so, all codes of known origin have been observed to be a product of intelligence Morse, binary, bee codes , if DNA is a code then it's inferred deductively to be one as well, except u can refute the first premise by citing a code of known origin produced sans intelligence

Kay17:
The key premise stated all codes of a known origin are products of intelligence. Your minor premise merely stated that DNA is a code and it did not go further to state if DNA had a known origin.

The minor premise ought to find its validity to the extent the major premise allows. Therefore your conclusion is wrong

I clearly stated Deductive logical inference , I doubt u understand what that means? syllogism : All know C is product of I, if D is C therefore D is is a product of I , the conclusion is inferred from all available evidence. it's like all kids of known birth have mothers, john is a kid therefore John has mother , hope u get it now

UyiIredia:
A scientific work doesn't have to be peer reviewed to be good. Since creationism is considered pseudoscience their work can never be accepted for peer review in any mainstream science journal. The same for intelligent design.



There are several points against the Miller-Urey experiment which includes

• a poor simulation of natural factors: for instance, excluding the extreme heat and radioactivity supposed to prevail in early earth.
• intelligent intervention: stopping the reaction at the right time to acculate products and prevent it overheating into tar.
• racemic mixture output: life exclusively uses left-handed amino acids while the amino acids produced in the experiment have left and right-handed amino acids.
• little output: the concentration of amino acids was minute, and many amino acids were produced in very little concentrations.

The even more powerful point is that although the points I have stated should convince any reasonable, objective person that the Miller-Urey experiment does not substantiate abiogenesis, they aren't necessary. The more crucial argument is that even if we assume that Miller-Urey is correct and somehow early earthe made amino acids, it isn't sufficient to prove abiogenesis because you have to explain how amino acids polymerized into proteins and how other organic chemicals like lipids, DNA, RNA etc were assembled into the first living being.

great points , using Urey's experiment as evidence for abiogenesis will be a presuppositional fallacy , mind u, even Darwin's theory of evolution was published in a book and not in a reviewed paper, but the creation site reviews their articles before publishing on their journal

LightandDarkness:
How so exactly, that article (opinion piece really) is long

so u won't read a peer reviewed paper coz its long? no wonder u are an atheist

lastkingsman:
This is why I ended up being a deist instead of an atheist. When you look at the universe, you can't but agree that it is a creation. The chance of earth rotating and revolving 24/7, 365 day per year by accident is 1/99999999999999999999999999....

Everything you see is magnificently and divinely designed and created by the creator

Add 07034362071 to join Nigerian union of deists whatsapp group

LightandDarkness:
Hardly a failed one, there is strong evidence for abiogenesis. If it was failed, it would have been discarded already, there are no sentiments in science.

actually the milley Urey experiment ended up making abiogenesis unlikely

http://creation.mobi/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

UyiIredia:
Not just dolphins but babies. And the reason babies and dolphins can't produce codes is because they are not as intelligent as the average adult human. Not at all, indeed human intelligence makes codes but his argument is careful to isolate the quality humans possess that allows them to make codes. So the conclusion and premise you forward is moot.

I wonder if the livescience article I posted under my argument that shows dancing bees communicate via codes Is not showing

jonbellion:
no the burden of proof lies on YOU that makes the god claim
I never said god doesn't exist
My definition of god is not even an immaterial being
The first cause could have been anything. You have just decided that god is the perfect name. Not to mention you put God out of materialistic scrutiny so how would you expect god to be proven
Languages have developed over thousands of year(if not millions).
DNA has also evolved over millions of years from single celled animals that had simple DNA structures to more complex animals that had complex DNA. If any god Created DNA why wouldn't it just make it complex from the start. It underwent various natural processes overtime to become what it is now There are actually a lot of complex structures that have come into place with natural processes like snowflakes and send dumes
And the miller uray experiment was able to produce amino acids one of the fundamental building blocks of life
Because you don't know doesn't mean you should stamp your ignorance with god
Not like the diestic god is not probable it is way more likely than the thiestic version of god but a god that is completely outside of nature and impossible to prove would make people like me apathetic towards it

the Miller Uray experiment needed INTELLIGENT scientists to carry it out

jonbellion:
no the burden of proof lies on YOU that makes the god claim
I never said god doesn't exist
My definition of god is not even an immaterial being
The first cause could have been anything. You have just decided that god is the perfect name. Not to mention you put God out of materialistic scrutiny so how would you expect god to be proven
Languages have developed over thousands of year(if not millions).
DNA has also evolved over millions of years from single celled animals that had simple DNA structures to more complex animals that had complex DNA. If any god Created DNA why wouldn't it just make it complex from the start. It underwent various natural processes overtime to become what it is now There are actually a lot of complex structures that have come into place with natural processes like snowflakes and send dumes
And the miller uray experiment was able to produce amino acids one of the fundamental building blocks of life
Because you don't know doesn't mean you should stamp your ignorance with god
Not like the diestic god is not probable it is way more likely than the thiestic version of god but a god that is completely outside of nature and impossible to prove would make people like me apathetic towards it

Are u saying the person making the positive claim has the burden of proof?

[quote author=jonbellion post=54011503]yes athiest philosopher turned diest
Why?[/quote

Are u aware he was the one that redefined Atheism as "lack of belief" in God? are u also aware of the etymological fallacy?

now let me ask u, Do u agree that God exists?
A. Yes (theism
B No (Atheism
C. I don't know (agnostic)

?

jonbellion:
naw baby I'm a realist

do u know who Anthony flew is?

jonbellion:
I don't believe in god
That is diffrent from I know there is no God
Atheism is a lack of belief not an absolute claim
What is intellegent design
The designer is natural selection
And yes e are because we both reject organized religion which is the most of the time the main arguenent

Atheism redefined as lack of belief is an etymological fallacy, if u once believed in God, how do u go from believing to lacking belief? only Tarzan can lack a belief in God, u only disbelief and that comes with burden of proof since it mean the theist claim "God exists" is not True , burden of proof is on u to show how our universe came into existence, I don't know is the agnostic position or a fallacy from ignorance

MrMontella:
what nonsense are you spitting bro?

where is the language ? u think we are playing here?

jonbellion:
I wonder why blogthug is always attacking atheism
You don't see athiests critise diests the same way you don't see them criticise Eastern Religions like Buddhism
They don't interfere with the workings of society on a large scale like the stupid mainstream religions like Islam and Christianity
Blogthug we are basically on the same side

do u believe God exists? Do u believe in Intelligent design? are we really on the same side?

MrMontella:
the flaw is very evident.

the only intelligence known to produce codes are human intelligence.

dolphins are intelligent but cannot produce codes.

so therefore based on his stupid argument,
humans must have created dna

are u blind ni? I sited a link below the argument from a scientific site that bees communicate with codes too, try again star dust

Ranchhoddas:
Special Pleading. Or can you give me another example of an immaterial living entity?

stop derailing the argument

Ranchhoddas:
All living entities have progenitors. God is a living entity. Ergo, God has a progenitor

---

Do you agree? Why?

non sequitor

but God should not be classified as a living entity, that's why the question is always Does God exists? not is god living?

ExAngel007:
baseless... many new viruses pop up frm everywhere around the world, that doesnt mean it was created

non sequitor fallacy, try again