₦airaland Forum

^^^ Good point.

Simple question:

Does whatever experience an atheist has in general Nigerian society justify coming to Nairaland to insult the people on Nairaland i.e Nairaland posters?

chukkynwob: Are all biologists evolutioists?
Is believing in the theory of evolution a prerequisite for being a biologist?

If yes, how did you get to that conclusion?

Bros, if you examine all the argumens of atheists carefully, even the slightly more worthwhile intellectually arguments, it all boils down to something simple: 'I do not believe that God exists'.

Please note that it is not the same thing as "there is no evidence"; it is more akin to either "I do not believe the evidence" or "I choose to interpret the evidence differently".

Therefore, one should be mindful of how much time and energy one spends arguing with them on substantive issues.

What is the point of arguing extensively with someone who chooses to close ears, eyes and mind?

Enigma: Ah, in addition to my last post let me touch on something that some people like to bandy about. Because the person with whom it is most associated is dead I will go soft on him.

Anyway a statement goes something like: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

But the person who made the statement was evidently blind to the simple retort that his own or any such dismissal can be simply dismissed without any evidence or even any attempt at argument.

Oh, and by the way, needing to do no more than dismissing without evidence a dismissal alleged based on lack of evidence of a previous claim ----- is a very god way of "debating" a lot of evangelical atheists and, as must be evident by now, is something that informs my attitude on this forum. Elsewhere and in fora with a better atmosphere . . . . .

Ah, in addition to my last post let me touch on something that some people like to bandy about. Because the person with whom it is most associated is dead I will go soft on him.

Anyway a statement goes something like: “That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

But the person who made the statement was evidently blind to the simple retort that his own or any such dismissal can be simply dismissed without any evidence or even any attempt at argument.

toba: Not only him but all atheists in general. If i claim seun is a man, i must have some evidences to prove Seun's a man. Anything outside of that is mere assumption.

You have a fair idea of 'burden of proof'.

In law and in philosophy the operation of 'burden of proof' is even simpler than I have seen presented on this thread so far (unless I have missed something).

Burden of proof does not arise on a claimant only or merely because the claimant makes an assertion that goes against an established or default position.

Burden of proof arises on a claimant simply because the claimant makes an assertion. Period.

Claimant 1: Big Slam cosmology proves the existence of God. That is an assertion and he must provide proof in whatever form (logic, science, empirical etc)

Claimant 2: Big slam cosmology does not prove the existence of God. That is an assertion and he must provide proof in whatever form (logic, science, empirical etc)

The fundamental error that many make (or chicanery that people often fall for) is the argument that only the person who makes a "positive" claim has a burden of proof. That is wrong! Even negative claims and negative assertions are subject to the burden of proof. You could argue that in some circumstances, one party has a greater onus than another; but that is a different point.



If I say: I saw you at The Galleria last night; you say 'it is a lie, prove it'. I get two of my friends to say they saw you (they may be lying); on the face of it we have discharged an initial burden of proof. What do you now do? Keep shouting 'it is a lie' or provide what is called an "alibi"? And if you provide an alibi, what are you doing as regards burden of proof?

faboben10: Gud morning my dear friends,
how has it been?
Let d fastn continue, may God bless us all.

Amen.

^^^ You see am?

On that thread you will see the below from me . . .

Enigma: 1. No one is saying they should not be atheists.

2. No one is saying they should not practise their atheism faith and religion however they see fit.

3. No one is saying they should not keep their atheism private.

The contention is their lie of an excuse for coming to forums to insult people pointlessly.

Look, under normal circumstances Christians will discuss Christian issues and other social issues among themselves and with other reasonable people. When the atheists here claim Christians call them fools, they forget that it is usually after they have come in with their immoral and amoral obnoxiousness, lack of home training and other "issues" and insulting people BEFORE people call them what they are.

and the following from the OP himself!

davidylan: err you are being dishonest again. No one, even me, has said you have no right to practice your lack of belief in the privacy of your bathroom.. The problem is that many of you are no better than helpless mice in real life. Unable to discuss this same overwhelming proof of the infallibility of science to those that really matter in real life.

chukkynwob:
I am certainly learning the futility of debating with atheists on NL, if poopil will insist on redefining the law to play 'the victim' card,then this argument is simply misappropriation of bandwidth

I, for one, certainly believe it is futile; hence my contributions are deliberately geared to showing up their illogic, dogmas, intellectual dishonesty etc.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol seriously? You of all people?

You lost the right to make this comment when you sided with ifeness' doctine of alien gods and godesses from outer space fertelizing human beings with their DNA. It is pitiful the depths you would stoop to in order to hold onto your Anti-Christ stance[/quote]As some smart fellow once said (and yes it is another quote ) ----- when you stop believing in God, you start believing in anything.

EDIT: Apparently it was GK Chesterton: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."

^^^ It shouldn't take you Catholics long to prove them wrong about this thread at least (as I don't know what led the pope to resign). Start by checking whether their link and story have anything to do with the real New York Times.

In fact the link might be one of those fraudulent links used to gather people's personal details.

EDIT I see that the link used in the OP here is not the one to the "NYT" as in a similar thread but to some blog; in that case check whether there is a real organisation such as the OP refers to.

davidylan: For most of them, the major reason they hide their lack of belief is their own inherent insecurity. They can only pretend to be adherents of science on the web where they can a) their real identity and b) have recuse to google should they run into a pickle. In real life there is no google to rush to when you can answer a question.

Like you noted, i wonder why they are so desperate to hang out with "uneducated" "bigots".

Ah, this reminds me of something I said a looong time ago now; in the days when we still gave some of them the benefit of doubt as people to reason and/joke with ------ until they showed themselves to be lying amoral bigots.

From https://www.nairaland.com/546562/atheism-religion/2#7126807

Enigma: De thing na waaa o jare

The 'evangelical' atheists here (some of them even aggressive if not militant) are obviously proselytising: seeking to prove that their own 'faith' {in godlessness or in lack of god, if they prefer} is right or trying to 'debunk' Christianity and other religions; basically they are trying to prove that their own belief or faith or religion (sarcasm alert!) is better than anyone else's. Now that's interesting, isnt't it? I would say it shows at least two forms of insecurity: (a) they do not know that their own belief, faith or religion (sarcasm alert) is right and thus need the reassurance from attacking 'weaknesses' in others; (b) they are ashamed to admit that they are indeed basically doing that which they accuse others of ---- practising a 'religion' (sarcasm only partly alert!!!). What with all the contention, criticising, proselytising etc?

There are (let's say "passive" atheists who just exist day to day; do not even think about God let alone to consider or ponder his existence, yet let alone to consider discussing his existence with others, yet let alone to try to persuade others of his non-existence. These atheists just live, they just exist. God is not even in the picture at all for them.

Compare those with our evangelical (aggressive if not militant) atheist friends who are indeed obssessed with this same God that they claim do not exist. Of all the threads and discussion on the forum they encamp in the religion section!

davidylan: . . . . If family ostracism is the discrimination that atheist cry about then they are not very serious and are just guilty of trying desperately to paint themselves as victims to hide their growing intolerant streak. . . .

Speaking of their intolerant streak, apparently it dates back far before the present crop of evangelical atheists.

Michael Ruse, an atheist, says (and, yep it is another quote from that earlier link ) http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/michael-ruse-humanism-religion/

Yet even Huxley was looking for something to replace religion as a world-view. In certain important ways, he anticipated the quasi-religious behaviour and attitudes of the Humanist movement today. He didn’t think science was indifferent to religion: he thought it could compete with it . . . . .

He published a collection of his essays under the title Lay Sermons. The popular press knew him as ‘Pope Huxley’. And he wouldn’t brook any opposition. The Catholic biologist St George Mivart, a former student of Huxley who wrote against Darwin, found this out in quick order. From being one of the chosen inner group, he was expelled into outer darkness. Before long, charges were floating that Mivart was scientifically and religiously undependable, and that he also exuded a whiff of moral unreliability. Differences about science weren’t just epistemological: they were ethical too. That is what I don’t like: Huxley made science into something that behaved like a religion.

vedaxcool:
Atheism cannot destroy a barnyard talkless of religion! And the rest is nothing more than an atheist Lies meant to throw a wool over our eyes! Well done though I have promoted you from being an ordinary defender of manmuswac to a Q.C for MMC

Now that is real funny!

And many sensible people, including the more sensible atheists, have been telling them But of course, you can't really expect them to 'get it'.

poopli: . . . some even think atheim is synonymoua to immorality.. . .

1. If you read proper philosophers, including atheist philosophers that are honest to some extent, you will know that immorality is a natural and logical corrolary of atheism.

2. The example of the atheists on this forum tells us that immorality and lack of morals go together with atheism.

^^^ Don't worry; when your cup gets full again --- I will remind you even more clearly about those responsible for your lack of home training and lack of manners!

Logicboy03: Majaze was right to call Enigma a dunce.


Look at the bold and then look at the op. Dunce

Well, as I always say I would also be right to call [you know who] a dunce!

PalmTree: We need to be careful as to the sides we take here. In nigeria, many people make their decisions along religious lines and even within xtainity people discriminate. Personally have seen a Jehovah witness ostracize his kids for going penticostal, I have seen penticostal xtains frown at celestial and C&S members. If this can happen within christaindom, then imagine what lies in store for an atheist who dares profess to it. The line "do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers" is commonly used to validate this actions. For islam, the lesser said, the better. So please if an atheist says he wants to keep his disbelief private, let's respect that. It might not be cowardice because some things are better kept secret to save family ties. If I were to become an atheist, I dare not tell my mum or any one for that matter (cos my mum will eventually get the news) because my mum will pass out immediately, family ties might also be severed, I hope you all get my drift. Logicboy claims to have told his UK friends about his beliefs but not his Naija friends either home or abroad, I don't think its hypocritical, I think he knows them and he can guess their reactions and the overall effect of such actions. Thanks

1. No one is saying they should not be atheists.

2. No one is saying they should not practise their atheism faith and religion however they see fit.

3. No one is saying they should not keep their atheism private.

The contention is their lie of an excuse for coming to forums to insult people pointlessly.

Look, under normal circumstances Christians will discuss Christian issues and other social issues among themselves and with other reasonable people. When the atheists here claim Christians call them fools, they forget that it is usually after they have come in with their immoral and amoral obnoxiousness, lack of home training and other "issues" and insulting people BEFORE people call them what they are.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Lol[/quote]Those ones are actually mostly preaching "prosperity gospel"; they can't be bothered with atheists.

chukkynwob: Such hypocrisy!! Most atheists have no idea what it means to be the target of terrorist attacks

Don't mind them; look at your friend whose post is just above yours who said his Nigerian friends in the UK mostly do not know that he is an atheist. I guess those ones too are going to bomb him or otherwise "persecute" him.

musKeeto: Indeed... One and the same

Yep, like those comparing the killing of Christians in Nigeria to "victimisation" of atheists in Nigeria.

And those ignorant that an atheist had been appointed to political office in Nigeria.

Yep, those people.

musKeeto: And we know which citizens would happily trade one for the other.. ;-)

Just as we know the people who are ignorant or duplicitous on these matters.

musKeeto: My apologies, then.. I probably missed the posts you were referring to.

Social status helps though, and in a country where most are won over by 'packaging', it would be fair to say that any politician who comes out as an 'atheist' has little to no hope of winning no matter how attractive his resume may be...

Although this thread I believe holds false hope... www.nairaland.com/1087081/vote-atheist-election

And in the UK where some of us live (at least most of the time presently), the atheists "run things".

Your chances in politics, sciences, maybe academia generally etc are far far far more likely to be affected negatively if you come out as a Christian, Moslem or person of faith generally. They are not negatively affected and in general are even more likely to be positively affected if you are an atheist or "irreligious".

^^^ Whatever man; even your actions today alone expose you.

I will indulge you this once since I'm already making a number of exceptions today.

musKeeto: Consider that if a bomb's dropped on any Nigerian city today, less than 1 percent of the victims would be atheists...

And that is the same as bombs dropped on churches; Christians deliberately targeted for murder?

musKeeto: And Tai Solarin was appointed because he was an atheist?

Who said Solarin was appointed because he was an atheist?

Are you unable to follow a simple argument? People said an atheist cannot be appointed to political office in Nigeria; I simply pointed out that it has in fact happened before . . . . Pretty easy to follow argument, I would have thought.



Edit I use 'political office' to include not just elective but also appointive office.

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I was responding to muskeeto as regards vedaxcool's last comment. I thought he was insinuating cowardice on the part of vedaxcool.

As for the op, No I don't think he is brain dead and besides, I quite agree with him especially as regards you in particular. I have often told you that you exaggerate the so-called "atheist discrimination". From where I stand, it appears to me that you are merely playing the martyr.

I see no real discrimination of atheists in Nigeria. I also didn't see any significant discrimination towards me when I was an atheist. At the very worst I got called names like "demon possessed". I didn't even get as much insults then as I get now from atheists on this forum.[/quote]Compare how many people get killed in Nigeria ---- for being Christians.

It was in that same Nigeria that Tai Solarin who was very very very well and clearly known to be an atheist was appointed to a political office.

manmustwac: Exactly deluded and liar are always flying around but i can't hide or edit everything so i just pick out certain words because i think its better than hiding posts. As for two weeks ago i can't remember

Naah, now I am going to accuse you of lying; at least, I don't believe you. I guess part of your problem is that last week I pointed out another example of your double-standards which did not even concern me.

As I said then: you think because we keep quiet we do not see your bias and double standards.

One fellow suggests that the reason for the cowardice of the evangelical atheists is to avoid conflict among family. But of course atheist morality does not extend to respecting other people and their faiths ---- and avoiding conflict even in an online forum.

Typical evangelical atheist duplicity.

Ironically, the title of the thread is "The Cowardice of Atheism"! lol

Manmustwac demonstrates not only the cowardice of atheism but also the dishonesty and lack of morality that is part of atheism --- especially evangelical atheism.

He says I was the first to "insult" when words like "liar", "deluded" and more were flying about in my direction before I responded in quite mild fashion.

Don't go and borrow money to buy some honesty from Christians.

manmustwac: its me who did it. I edited your mumu because you were the first to insult, only to scroll down and realize i would have to do the same thing at least a dozen times which is not easy for me to do while using my phone, but its sorted now.

Nope, go back and read the thread from page 4; there you will see many posts directing insults to me before I responded very mildly.

So, it IS a LIE to say I was the first to insult. :rolleyes:

And why did you not remove 'mumu' in other people's posts?

And, were you also the one who edited another post of mine two weeks ago?

^^^ Ooooh bros, I have strong suspicions who it is; in fact, I'm fairly sure I know who it is. I have just chosen to present the case neutrally to give a fair chance for reply.

^^ You too saw that Ishilove cartoon or whatever!

On a more serious note, I find the action of whoever did it deplorable. And as I said, it is at least the second time; I overlooked the first incident that I noticed.