₦airaland Forum

Shelumiel:
You can do that for me since you are idle this morning .

Ok

Shelumiel:
I do not understand you. ..please read what you wrote and put it in a way I can understand. Thank you

Saying you need proof to every claim made is way to go man.... Now let's take it to church

Shelumiel:
I need proof sire . Can you do that ? And while you're at it , please bring pictures ...lots of pictures ; not bedtime stories. Okay ?

If u (or every Christian) asked this question anything anytime people give testimonies in the church or pastors do "miracle" to unknown persons... A lot of cash would be saved.

Gggg102:
then you are atheist since you KNOW god does not exist.
which contradicts your agnostic claim here :

okay

although your proof is invalid, since absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

God is not existent if he has not been proven for thousands of years. there is no big deal to this

Gggg102:
the difference is much. one is agnostic, the other is atheistic. one doesn't have burden of proof, the other has a burden of proof. you can't have the burden of proof and not have the burden of proof at the same time.

not believing something does not mean it is not right. it means you are in doubt. you can doubt something and it still turns out to be true. when you say something is false, it means there is zero chance that thing is true. it means you know it is false and you should be able to prove it.

you say you don't believe theist have seen any god. so it means you're doubting since none have shown you convincing evidence. that you don't believe them does not make their show their claim is false.
if you said it is a lie that theists have seen god, or no theist have seen god, then you are saying it is a confirmed fact that theists have not seen god. you would have to prove this fact.

@bold, that's an attempt to prove god does not exist right there.
you say the theist lie, so that means it is a fact that god does not exist and you KNOW this fact. which conflicts with you saying that YOU DON'T KNOW. because if you KNOW theists are lying, it means you KNOW that there is no god. burden of proof therefore falls on you also.

I really don't care if I am an atheist or agnostic... I just know that theists who say God exists have not been able to prove him and so if he also has refused to show himself since I have been alive, he does not exist.
The prove that God does not exist is in the fact that out of billions that have lived and died, none has seen him... This is enough for me and I don't need to say he might possibility be real since his existence or not adds no value to my life.
Any one who makes silly assumptions i will tell them they lie.

Gggg102:
you not believing their conclusion is not equivalent to their conclusion being false.

saying I don't believe is different from saying you are lying.

saying I don't believe means you are skeptical and waiting for evidence to convince you.(you allow the possibility of the statement being true or false).
saying you are lying means the statement is false. (there is no possibility of it being true).

They are almost the same thing bro... Not believing means something is not right, something is wrong. And if something is wrong, something is false.
The difference is really not much and should not be a matter of such a long debate. I am stressed out already for such little difference.

I don't believed theist have seen any God. I know no one knows how or what created the world, therefore I think theists are false. And I can confidently say there is no God until one is proved.
I don't see a big deal in this assumption. The evidence of no God is in his inability to show up or do something just the way I look at the cupboard and see no monster, thats how I look around and see no God.
There theist lie

Gggg102:
you can dismiss their claim when they don't have evidence without proof of them being false because you are not making any claim. it is the person making the claim that has the burden of proof.

I can also say they are wrong because they don't have any proof.

Only u... U really needed Jesus.

Gggg102:
I never said you should not dismiss them.

you CAN dismiss empty assumptions.

saying it is false without proof of it being false is what is the issue.

you can't say something is true without proof, you also can't say something is false without proof.

if anyone says anything without proof, you CAN dismiss their claims.

when you are listening to a claim, you can dismiss the claim based on no evidence.

but when you make a claim, you have to bring evidence or your claim is dismissed as an empty assumption.

So why should I even dismiss their claim without proof of it being false?

Gggg102:
even if the person hasn't looked into the cupboard, the person's claim is just an empty assumption. you can't say it is true or false except you know.

In other word, we should not dismiss empty assumptions even when we recognize it as empty?
So ur whole argument is that empty assumptions should be accommodated. Lol. So both of u never get to visit this neighbours cupboard and ur friend keep on pestering ur life with this so called handsome monster what do u do... U keep on patting him on his back that he may be right?
Sorry... I am not that kind of person.

you can tell him that he is lying and his assumption could be true, telling that he is lying implies that you know what is in the neighbour's cupboard. it is more appropriate to tell him you don't believe him as he is making an empty assertion.

So assumptions that are totally ridiculous and can never be confirmed should be entertained? Going by ur statement I can tell u that I have a red lion with three heads that give me money every week under my bed without any proof.. In fact my proof is the money in my hand and u will tell me that my assumption could be true?
By the way what do u mean by "he is lying but his assumption could be true". I can see u want to just win this argument.
U don win. I give up.

it is erroneous to make a conclusion on false evidence, it is also erroneous to make a conclusion based on no evidence.

The proclaimer gives no evidence and false evidence and u are asking me to entertain him? If u judge and someone tells u I killed his brother with little or no evidence wouldn't u dismiss his claim? Would u keep me remanded until he gets evidence any time he feels like? Will u say absence of evidence is not and evidence of absence and tell me to continue being under custody until accuser gets a real evidence or not?
If the judge dismiss his claim based on no evidence or false ridiculous evidence, and even go ahead to set me free as a free man does it mean he has gotten hard and concrete evidence that I am not the killer?
Someone tells u there is God and u ask all necessary question and can't get any reasonable answer for all ur life and u say it should not be dismissed and rejected?

when I dismiss their evidence, I am saying their evidence does not back their conclusion, and I don't believe their conclusion because their conclusion is an empty assumption. saying their conclusion itself is false implies that you know for sure that it is false, even when you don't know.

Oga when u don't believe their conclusion u have already said their conclusion false. And i know for sure that their conclusion is false because I already know they don't know. I already know no one can know.

Gggg102:
if someone says there is a monster in the cupboard, and I open the cupboard and see no monster, I have proven that there is no monster in the cupboard. saying there is no monster in the cupboard is correct because I KNOW that there is no monster in the cupboard. my position is not that I DON'T KNOW, my position is that I KNOW.

Fair

if however, I can't check the cupboard, I won't be able to prove that no monster is in it, and my conclusion would be I DON'T KNOW. I cannot conclude that there is no monster in the cupboard because I can't prove it. I can only ask for evidence and examine them and dismiss them if the evidence is faulty. me dismissing did not mean there is no monster in the cupboard, me dismissing them means that the evidence supporting the claim is not convincing, so I remain in my I DON'T KNOW position.

They assumption u are erroneously making here is that the person who said there was a monster had already looked into it before telling me there is a monster

Listen attentively:

If u have a cupboard in ur house and while at work u tell me that there is a monster in ur cupboard... I will ask for evidence and even if u cant prove it, I will still leave a chance that u might be telling the truth.
Buy if you tell me there is a cupboard in ur neighbours house and I ask... Have u been to his house? No. Did he tell u there is a monster? No. How does the monster look like? I don't know but I know must be handsome. How did u know that there is a monster that is handsome in ur neighbours cupboard Because my neigbour acts like he is scared of something.
Oga I will tell it to ur face that u are lying despite not checking (or despite my position being I don't know). Its called common sense.

you who say that your position is that you don't know, can't use a conclusive statement because a conclusive statement implies that you know.

I am not doing this again. But let me put this in quickly:
Where both know or both don't know... The observer can confidently arrive at the same position. Its simple. I am only confident because I know we both don't know.

if they prove nothing, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are false. it only means their evidence is false.
if I say that the proof of the earth being spherical is that grass is green, and you say my evidence is false, does it mean that the earth isn't spherical?

Why should anyone be making conclusive statement on false evidence? What kind of thinking is that?

you are not automatically saying there is no god, you are automatically saying that they haven't been able to prove god and so their claim is just an assumption.
if you say that there is no god, you make a conclusive statement, you have moved from your I don't know position to an I know position.
you've moved from you don't know if god exists to you know god does not exist.
and once you are in a position of knowledge, burden of proof lies on you also.

And why do u dismiss their evidence u are automatically saying what?

Gggg102:
then saying no god is misleading, because saying there is no god is conclusive, and I'm quite certain some use it conclusively.

How is it misleading? If someone tells u there is a monster in the cupboard and u open is and see not monster, will it be misleading to say there is no monster in the cupboard?
What is the right response to this claim?

saying that theists evidence prove nothing is enough. you can dismiss their claims based on the fact that they do not have evidence.

When u conclude it proves NOTHING haven't u indirectly concluded that they are false? If u accept they are false are u saying their is God? Oga there is no need being political about this... If someone lies that there is God and can't prove it and u dismiss it, reject it, say its not enough evidence.. U are automatically saying there is no God to the there is God claim...
Even if God exists he will not bite u for calling a spade a spade based on observation around u.

jFrankNorfleet:
How is it that you fornicated and committed adultery at the same time?

Still come become master mastobator on top am... And still has so much time to drink like an alcoholic...

By their lying fruits we shall known them

Gggg102:
it equates to you rejecting their idea and nothing else. if you state that NO ONE knows, how do you make a statement of knowledge.
1. you claim no one knows.
2. you also say no god exists.

if NO ONE knows, then how did you know god does not exist?

argument from theists ignorance, is also argument from ignorance.

U are deliberately ignoring my point just to repeat something I have already cleared. We should be past this by now my dear Gggg.
Atheists who say no God are only responding to theists who (we have accepted do not know how the world started) say there is God. Atheism is not concerned about how the world started... For me, it could be started by a rolling ball for all I care but I know we all do not know. Atheism arose because of false claims from theists all over the place. We are the voice of reason that is asking the right question... You say there is God who does blah blah blah, prove it! If they can't we conclude that they remain ignorant and reject their "there is God claim" bexause, as we know, no one knows.
Of course if there is God and he has not proven himself, it matters not if we believe or not and that's not the atheists business. Our business is that when someone claims there is God and can't prove it, he lies or he is wrong that there is God... And the fact is that based on the knowledge available to us, based on. Human effort, we have sensed no God... So the appropriate status quo should be, no God until one is found.

I am not repeating this explanation again.

you say because they don't know therefore it doesn't exist. that is false. that they don't know does not mean it doesn't exist.

absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

No I say because they don't know and can't prove their assumption, they are wrong. This is a valid conclusion I am sure. We are directly responding to theists and not concluding on the situation of the universe itself. We have no knowledge of that.
Recall when theists say there is God, they over blow it, call it names, pray to it, worship it, claim he loves and helps them, sacrifice to it... All these indicates they have formed a false God concept and we say this false God concept does not exist. Hence the statement no God.

If we already accept that no one knows how then can't I confidently dismiss false claims.
Again.. Atheists saying no God are responding DIRECTLY to theists who make false claim that their is God. If God exists and has not been found of thousands of years so far... We will continue saying no God as a counter to all false assumptions until he is found. We cannot not pretend a God no one has ever ever seen exists.

If u have a question pls ask, but I beg u, do not related the same absence of evidence blah blah blah... Its irritating.

Gggg102:
I'm not saying you should accept unproven claims, I'm saying that rejecting them does not equate to falsehood.

What does it equate? On what basis am I even rejecting their assumption? Isn't it in the basis that no one knows how the world came to be? If I accept that no one knows what else should I do with false laughable assumptions with no prove from year to year?

you can reject them and they could still be right, so you don't have a base to say the claim is false. you can't say you don't know and at the same time say you know that it is false.

How can they be right when 1. No one knows how or what started the universe. 2. They are just assuming based on ignorance. 3. Their ideas are as laughable and ridiculous. 4. They have no prove just emotional appeal.
If we agree we don't know, why shoulnt I reject assumptions from someone as ignorant as I am?

you can dismiss claims that god exists, but saying god does not exist is a different ball game.

Dismissing their claims means rejecting it and calling it false. If I cannot reject and call it false, then I cannot dismiss it.

saying god doesn't exist is an assertion of fact and burden of proof falls on the claimant to prove this claim. not just relying on absence of evidence.

I am only saying God doesnt exist based on the false ignorant assumptions that were put up to me. Yes its an assertion of fact, and the fact that there is no prove of any God.
When man says there is God with no idea what God is... He is definitely wrong

Gggg102:
him saying there is no god means nothing other than there is no god.
saying there is no god implies that it has been proved that there is no god.

Based on claims made na... Are u saying theists should not reject none proven claims? When someone rejects a claim what language should he use to show he disagrees?

that none have been proven does not mean there is no god.
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

So... Should then accept nonsensical unproven clams?

no one knows, so you can't claim it was created, neither can you claim it wasn't.

Therefore we should not dismiss nonsensical unproven claims?

you can't claim there is god, neither can you claim there is no god. dismissal does not equate falsehood.

God is supposedly a conscious being... If he exists we will not rely on assumptions... Until then all God claims are false based on no prove.

Gggg102:
or it's atheism that is acting both as agnosticism and atheism at once.

Of course they are free to if they want to. But I just think atheists just go a step further to say all God assumptions a false because they have not been proven.

you say everyone does not know. and I agree.

Cool

1.do you agree that the theists who say there is god are making empty assumptions?

Yes

2. do you agree that atheists who say there is no god are making empty assumptions?

This is where u get it wrong. Atheists saying there is no go based on the fact that theists are making empty assumptions can't be wrong. Atheists reject nonsensical God idea... If theists don't keep on making assumptions that there is God, I am sure atheists will not bother if there is God or no God. Atheists are simply asking for prove of claims, and if there is non, the claim is dismissed... I think this is clear.

Gggg102:
you saying there is no god implies the universe wasn't created.

but since you say your position is 'I don't know', then you are agnostic. this means you have no business saying god exists or god doesn't exist. you are only in position to ask for evidence.

I agree. they are empty assumptions. but since you are agnostic(you don't know group), you don't make empty assumptions like: 'there is god', 'the universe was created', 'there is no god', and 'the universe was not created'. you only ask for evidence from those who make empty assumptions.

Him saying there is no God implies that none has been proven... No one knows if the universe was created or not... Nonsensical assumptive claims must be dismisses

Gggg102:
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the
supernatural is unknown or
unknowable . [1][2][3]wikipedia

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of
deities . [1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. [5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. [1][2][7][8] wikipedia

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of the Supreme Being or deities . [1][2] wikipedia


theist= there is god.
atheist= there is no god.
agnostic= we don't know.

In this case agnostic is more like atheism... The fact is that everyone does not know... However when same people who do know make assumptions and call it fact, people who do not also know will ask them for proof and reject the assumption if none is given...like wise the agnostic who says he does not know,. Saying he does not know also implies that rejects the notion that there is God...

All these are really long unnecessary labelling and stories... If anyone says there is God, he should prove it, otherwise he is making false claim... Simple.

sinequanon:
Cool.

What about any supernatural being, whatsoever? Are you a "disbeliever" in that?

I have never seen any supernatural being... People have made claims they can't substantiate.

I have no opinion about this really... All i know is if anyone tells me he saw one, he will have to come op with undoubtable stories other wise I will dismiss it.

I am somewhat a disbeliever though... I said somewhat because that's is so much about the universe that we don't know... People call unknown things supernatural

Gggg102:
this is the definition of agnosticism.

There actually is slight difference between atheism and agnosticism...
Agnostics are sure of the possibility of God
Atheists are not sure of the possibility of God

Both agnosticism and theism are a definite position while atheism is a doubtful position... I hope this makes sense

sinequanon:
This assumes that the term "god" makes some kind of sense.

So, what do you understand by the term "god"?

Creator of the universe who created us to love and worship him

Gggg102:
no I don't accept them. that does not still make the theory false.

True... If one makes an assumption and over blows it... I will say its false especially if I ask certain question that the assumer cannot answer. I don't know what u expect me to think in such situation.

no I don't have the resources.
the same way you don't know anonymous creators. and also, science is limited.there was no science before the universe existed, so it makes sense that science cannot investigate whatever was before the universe.

So since we cannot investigate why make false assumption... Why not leave it at that.. Its like people assuming that there are houses in the sky and expecting me not to dismiss it after asking series of unconfirmed questions.

the best conclusion is that we don't know. you know why? it's because absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

Whennu say u don't know, u have indirectly dismissed all assumptions... Its like saying u did not accept the theory

using your logic, a theist would say: since after all these while it has not been proven that god doesn't exist, then the best conclusion is that it exists.

Anyone can actually make any meaningless statement. Only mad people make assumptions and come to conclusion about it without prove. Assumptions without proves should be dismissed not accepted.

atoms were first theorized before they were discovered.
same with microorganisms.
ancient people hypothesized about their existence.

This is not true... Pls lets not make bogus statements to with arguments.

gravitational wave was theorized and predicted long before it was discovered.

It was theorized after it was observed not before... Thats not what theists do.

sinequanon:
There are indeed broad and narrow definitions.

The narrowest definition defines atheism as the belief that no deities exist. I avoid the term in relation to myself. I just say that I do not "believe in" (i.e worship) god/gods. In terms of existence, I believe that deities/gods exist, in that they are supernatural beings worshiped by their followers. I am just not one of those followers.

The debate is intellectually very challenging, and is dealt with by very eloquent philosophers, so, yes, one has to be very careful and precise in using terms and constructing an argument.

Your definition of atheism actually seems a bit different from the normal spectrum of definitions I have come across, and there seems to be a little ambiguity, imo.

You have the argument that the term "god" makes no sense (cannot be conceptualized at all), and the position that argues from lack of experience (e.g witnessing an act of creation of the universe). If the term "god" makes no sense, the question of witnessing god makes no sense. You wouldn't know what you are witnessing, or how to witness it. On the other hand, if witnessing god demonstrates existence, then the term must make sense. So, can you clarify where you stand?

This is the meaning of atheism that I adhere to...

atheism
ˈeɪθɪɪz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: non-belief, non-theism, disbelief, unbelief, scepticism, doubt, agnosticism, irreligion, godlessness, ungodliness, profaneness, impiety, heresy, apostasy, paganism, heathenism, freethinking, nihilism
"atheism is virtually unknown in rural societies"

Gggg102:
so atheists don't know that god does not exist.

No one knows... We are all dealing with what we can relate with and so far we have not been able to relate with God.. Just questionable and disproven lies.

that you dismiss an idea does not make it untrue. it could still be the case that god exists.

So u come up with God idea, so many things about him like u are sure, then u wait for it to be proven? Where does this happen... Give me an example were people over blow and idea and wait for it to be proven...

how has the existence of god Bern shown to be unreasonable?

Take a walk into the religious arguments we have been having here.... One even told me god healed a child from comma and left her dumb and crippled because the mother is an unbeliever... Is this kind of God reasonable to u?

that it does not make sense to you does not mean it is false. there are many scientific theories that don't make 'sense'. do you dismiss them?

Wrong and false things do not make sense... U know this.

what do you mean by rejection of the idea of god?
is it that you don't believe that god exists? or that you believe that god does not exist?

I don't believe that gods exist.

if you are not perfectly sure, why do you keep asserting it as a fact that god does not exist?

Because people who are not perfectly sure are asserting that he exists.

how is creator of the universe unreasonable?

He has never be proven.

Gggg102:
absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.

So? Do u accept theories with no evidence?

that theist s have not been able to prove god does not mean he doesn't exist, it could mean that we don't have the resources to prove god.

Do u have the resource to prove that a white elephant created the world? The universe being created by a creator is as important as the universe itself... If the universe can exist, and we know without resources, why should the creator not easily be known?
If the creator of a known universe cannot be proved after all these years then the best conclusion is that there is no creator.

if your logic was to be followed in the last century, we would have things like-

scientist know that there is no atom because atom has never been proven.
because there was a time atoms hadn't been proven.

Atoms were discovered. No one had issues with atoms existing or not because no one knew it existed.. Or did anyone assume atom existed before it was discovered... See? that's the exact thing theists are doing...

there was also a time microorganisms had not been proven, so scientist following your logic would have said:
we know that microorganisms do not exist because microorganisms haven't been proven.

Microorganisms were discovered... No one could have started proving or disproving microorganisms before they were discovered...no one had discovered God.. Why say he exists? If u say he exists.. Just prove it and not go back to waiting for God to be proven after u say he exists.

or gravitational wave that was proven recently.
scientist before it was proven following your logic would say:
we know that gravitational wave does not exist since gravitational wave hasn't been proved.

My position on this should be clear given the examples above.

sinequanon:
Semantically, that is agnosticism, not atheism.

That, for example, is why "leading atheist", Richard Dawkins says that he is agnostic, not an atheist.

Atheism is not knowing God does not exist.. Or is that what atheism is to u.

Atheists are people who dismiss the idea of God because it makes no sense to them.

Is the above definition what agnosticism means?

Knowing God does not exists or the God exists is not possible... This is because no one was there when it all started.

Because of this impossibility, atheists dismiss the idea of God because they know no one knows.

Gggg102:
now you are being dishonest.

atheists KNOW that god does not exist.

if you don't know, how do you say that it is a fact that god does not exist?

you should be able to prove what you know.

"Know" is just a word... No need stressing so much on it. Atheist actually dismiss the idea of God or gods because this idea have been shown to be unreasonable.
Knowing that God does not exist in the way u mean it is too much for any human to handle.
As long as u reject the idea of a God or gods because it does not make sense to u, u are an atheist.
No one has really claimed he is perfectly sure God does not exists simply because we were all born to meet the universe and the cause seem to be beyond us as all people do is come out with falsifiable theories.
But all God idea can be dismissed simply because they are unreasonable... This is what atheist actually KNOW

Gggg102:
disproving any god disproves that god alone.
possibly, except they are disproved.

I can't prove a green elephant is not the creator because I don't know anything about the creation of the universe. I don't know if it was created or uncreated.

but you, an atheist, knows that no god created the universe so it shouldn't be difficult for you to prove that a green elephant did not create it.

An theists knows that no God created the universe because no God has ever been proven. Its as simple as that.

Gggg102:
that's beside the point. definition of creator of the implies that he is eternal. if he isn't, there would be no point in claiming there is a god. it is necessary that god is eternal.

the universe is not eternal. it had a beginning.


if I don't know anything about Nikato, I would ask you to prove it.
if I know as a fact that Nikato does not exist, I will prove to you that Nikato doesn't exist to save you from your ignorance.

the burden of proof lies on you if my position is that I do not believe you.

the burden of proof lies on both sides of my position is that you are lying. if my position is that I believe(know) that you are false, I have a burden of proof also.

atheists have a burden of proof once they assert that god doesn't exist.

there is the answer to ur question.
atheist dont know anything about any God or gods and when we ask theists to prove it that their God exists, they only say we should prove he does not...

Gggg102:
creator of the universe is the deist version of god. it is also a general characteristics of theist god. most agree that god created the universe. if you can prove such god does not exist, then you have successfully validated your atheism, if you can't, your assertion that there is no god is empty.

what you are trying to do is disprove gods one after the other. even if you do this successfully, it is not proof that a god doesn't exist at all. it is only proof that those specific gods don't exist. a god could still exist regardless. disproving all known gods would only mean all those gods are fake. it would not mean god doesn't exist.


we wouldn't know if the sun existed if it did not exist in human minds. if humans had no idea of the sun, we would not know it exists. that something exists in ideas does not equate not existing in reality. something can exist in ideas and in reality.

@ bold... does not disproving any God at all proves that they all exist? is there a possibility that all the individual gods people worship exist?

meanwhile, please prove that a green elephant is not the creator(except you believe a green elephant created the world)

In all my interactions with Christians... The dumbest questions ever asked is... Wait for it...








Tell me how u were u were created? Who made the sun and heavenly bodies?