₦airaland Forum

[quote author=Maynmann post=114095612][/quote]The writers are confused.


They still listed babies among atheists.....implicit soft atheists.

Dtruthspeaker:
We have already seen how adults choose not to believe eg a man choosing not to believe that he is in love with a prostitute as proven by a thread in romance or so.

He might have said he chooses not to believe.


But that doesn't mean not believing is by choose.


If you don't believe, it's a matter of chance because the absence of a belief is accidental.

Maynmann:
Agnostic is not same as athiesm

Negative atheism is still atheism

Maynmann:
I’m saying same thing

We're saying the same thing.

[quote author=Maynmann post=114095001][/quote]Selective man


You didn't underline where you have babies in brackets under varities of atheists

[quote author=Maynmann post=114094721][/quote]TenQ


Look down

See the last kind of atheists


Which has babies in brackets

LordReed:
Well how do you know if someone is an atheist if they've never even thought about it talk less of even expressing it.

A person that has heard or read about God but doesn't believe is an atheist.

A person that has neither heard or read about and doesn't believe is also an atheist.


It's impossible to believe what you have not really recognized as a statement that is either true or false.


You also can't reject what you never recognized to be available for acceptance.


Literally,a baby or an infant is a person at the stage where there's no recognition of something to be accepted or rejected mentally as true or false.


So, you know the baby is an atheist because the baby can't recognize what means God exists or not.



The baby doesn't have to think about being an atheist.....it was never a theist.



Being an atheist doesn't mean thinking of being an atheist.



Adult atheists can think of other things.


Baby atheists don't think of things they can't process with their brains.

Atheists are people that don't think God exists.

They are not people that must be thinking of why God does not exist.


They don't have to state how God does not exist!


Their brains are to suggest that there's no thought worth God.


They are not meant to think when God is being discussed .

Not because their brains are useless but because they are yet to see or hear anything worth their brains about God


A baby expresses this by not pretending to have nothing to say or sincerely saying nothing while a non-baby always has something to say to express that God's existence is not worth thinking about.

TenQ:
Is a person who acknowledges the existence of Deities but doesn't worship ANY an atheist or a theist?

Accepting the existence of deities without proof makes you a theist or believer in deities' existence.

But the problem is that theists usually accept to be called theists yet claim to be aware of the proof of deities or a deity.



Have you heard of or seen any theist that has never worshipped or that never worships?

TenQ:
I am using your definition of LACK of a BELIEF sir

All ANIMALS lack a belief therefore, are atheists!?

All PLANTS lack a belief therefore, are atheists!?

All BUILDINGS lack a belief therefore, are atheists!?

Please answer the questions above: can you see the stupidity of the term LACK of BELIEF!?

Did you not see PERSON?

Dtruthspeaker:
It is unreasonable and invalid to demand the impossible and the ridiculous.

Also unreasonable and invalid to suggest a request for the impossible and ridiculous in my post.

TenQ:
In other words, a Lack of Belief is only possible when a person is completely EMPTY (like a baby) or completely FULL (certainty of knowing).

Can you lack a belief that you don't exist?
Of course not! You know without an iota of doubt that your exist!

No he says babies can't be atheists so they can't lack belief.


Except he's saying only adult humans that lack belief in God are atheists.

So, babies that lack belief are not atheists or what exactly?

TenQ:
All babies lack a belief in the existence of any deity!
Are they Atheists?

All animals too have a lack of belief in any deity, therefore are they Atheists?

Animals are not persons.... I know you don't refer to persons as animals in this case.....so, animals are not atheists.

Dtruthspeaker:
It is not right to say that they lack belief, the accurate Truth would be that they are incapable of holding a belief!

You suggest adults can choose not to believe.... how's that?

LordReed:
The baby is NOT an atheist same way the baby is NOT a Christian, it cannot express any ideas regarding the subject. A person cannot be an adherent of something they have no knowledge of.

Is an atheist a person that must express an idea about God?

Wilgrea7:
I think a much better question is ... What do you mean by "God"?



What gives you the impression that IF a god exists, it has to be singular?



This assumes not only that a sort of deity exists, but that you know its minds, views, gender, as well as its desires. What objective proof do you have for any of these statements?



This statement implies that you know how they came about. I'm curious to know how, and what proof you have for this claim. Thanks

No answer to be seen

tctrills:
I said you feel it is nonsense does not make it nonsense. Your opinion is not fact. There is a big difference between facts and opinions and I don't think I should be teaching you the difference.

You didn't state why it is not a fact.


Don't divert!

Nobody is asking for the definitions of FACT and OPINION.


Just state how the definitions MEAN I didn't state facts!

TenQ:
It mean

Worship is the expression of the belief in God by doing something noteworthy to show you believe or intending to show you believe.

TenQ:
So according to you,
All ANIMALS are atheists!?
So according to you,
All PLANTS are atheists!?
So according to you,
All BUILDINGS are atheists!?


Yes or No!?

An atheist is a person that doesn't believe in God.

LordReed:
This is like claiming the baby is Christian or Muslim simply because of the parents beliefs. It is neither nor can it to be said to be of any religious persuasion since it has no knowledge of these things. Or are you telling me you can be a Christian without knowing it?

The baby doesn't possess knowledge of certain things just like the adult.


But the adult has passed through more though the adult might have a deformity that doesn't allow him or her to express his or her experience correctly.


Anyways, the baby also lacks belief in what he or she has not accepted to be specifically true without proof such as the existence of God which nobody can prove to have heard or seen anything about as an infant till he or she accepted the existence of such without the 'heard or seen something' being a proof.


Summary is there is no proof of any infant possessing any belief



Religious persuasion is different from lack of belief.

You don't need religious persuasion to lack belief.


The baby is an atheist whether or not the parents are atheists.

If I'm wrong ,why can't anyone including the Dtruthspeaker and TenQ prove their babies have the belief?

LordReed:
I don't know all the reasons why people reject facts but delusion is one reason.

Not always.

If they reject sincerely, it means they don't know it's a fact.


So ,they don't reject what they know to be correct,they sincerely and unwillingly reject even if they might say they do it by choice.


It actually happens by chance in their brains such that they know not that it is the truth they are rejecting.


In other words,their brains accidentally find the truth to be false.

tctrills:
I don't understand what you are trying to say

You said I should not call it nonsense!


Even if I see it as nonsense!


That requires pretending like I don't feel like calling it nonsense!


You also called it an opinion

Therefore, if I call you tctrills, it's also an opinion.

tctrills:
I am not getting you at all

I mean you are right to say having religious beliefs doesn't make you less intelligent in every aspect.

But I still don't find it more intelligent to be a theist.

TenQ:
Check again please.
I said
1. Atheists expect God to be made up of Matter
2. Since God is not made up of Matter they reject everything to the contrary
3. In other words, atheists are Basing their decisions on incomplete information.
3. My opinion: Since the information about God atheists want is incomplete, they have to believe the Creator doesn't exist
4. My conclusion: Atheists say they DO not disbelieve but they LACK a BELIEF! (Contrary to nos 3)


Of course Babies Cannot be Atheists. Their state of IGNORANCE is based on their intellectual capacity. Therefore, they cannot choose to believe, disbelief or even lack of belief. They just don't know anything.



I gave you two simple examples to illustrate what can be described as "LACK of BELIEF".

1. I lack a belief in the existence of Superman or Spiderman.
Why!?
I have a complete knowledge about Superman or Spiderman to come to such a conclusion. Therefore, even if I choose to believe in Superman or Spiderman, it would be impossible because I know they don't exist except inside comic books!
2. I lack a belief that 2+4=24
Why!?
I know for certain that 2+4=6, therefore it is impossible for me to believe that 2+4=24 even of I choose to.


A person can lack a belief ONLY and either he is totally IGNORANT or fully KNOWLEDGEABLE about a subject.

The question of sufficient evidence has been taken care of earlier: as The Creator CANNOT be physical and thus physical parameters can not be objectively used to know Him.

It is stupidity to insist on using a Ruler to measure the diameter of an atom. The fact that such is impossible does not invalidate the existence of atoms. Such is the argument of atheists with respect to their claim of lack of "sufficient evidence".



Of course, a Disbelief is an active rejection of available facts.
A lack of belief is completely different. As stated above, a lack of belief is born out of Gnostic knowledge.

A Question: Which of these two options is closest to the truth
Do you
A. Lack a Belief that 2+5=25 or
B. Disbelief that 2+5=25

How is ignorance the reason for lack of belief and how is lack of belief a choice?

Babies are atheists....... even if LordReed says otherwise.

LordReed:
Unless words no longer have the meanings we attribute to them then it is impossible for lack of belief to also be "a POSITION of BELIEF". A lack of something cannot by any stretch of the imagination also be the something that is in lack eg lack of food cannot also be food.




Ok




Wrong. You don't need complete knowledge to lack the belief as you have already showed with the baby. In the atheist case it is basically that the proposition "god(s) exist" has not being sufficiently demonstrated to the point where an atheist will gain the knowledge of such of god(s). If the atheist has no knowledge of the god(s), how can he then at the same time have the knowledge of the god(s)? It's impossible.

Also lack of belief is not disbelief. Disbelief is an active rejection of a fact. If you said here look, my dog is sitting over in that room and indeed the dog was there but I still said I don't believe you, that would be disbelief. On the other hand if you said you had a dog but when I ask you where it is you mumbled some incoherent thing and I said well I'll wait to see the dog before I believe you, that is lack of belief. They sound the same but they are not. To be clear some atheists do say they actively disbelieve in all forms of god(s), I am not one of them so I couldn’t tell you how they arrived at their position.

If indeed the dog is there means the dog is known to be there or .,.....


If it is known to be there,why would there be rejection?

Does sincere rejection of knowledge not involve not knowing?

tctrills:
That's the point, we both have personal opinions so I rather respect others. I would not call opinions that I don't understand senseless.

In other words, I should pretend.





Well,even what you state as your name is your opinion,then.

tctrills:
Tell me your field and I would show you religious people who are more intelligent than you.
My point is that simply because you don't believe does not make you intelligent.
I don't doubt, you might be a genius but intelligence has nothing to do with religious beliefs

Atheists can be more dangerously stupid than theists but I still don't think being a theist makes more sense at least in the head!


You might choose not to express your accidental atheism since you're under pressure but that's not because you have an option.....as you're under pressure.

tctrills:
Is there a black hole?
Is there a multiverse?
Are there alternative universe and alternate realities?
These are all theories in the science world. We keep looking for answers but saying they don't make sense is just a personal opinion

I have the answer... the answer is no!



No universe

No multiverse

No alternate reality

Just one reality in infinite forms!


So you might call it a personal opinion but that's also your personal opinion!

tctrills:
Again, just because you don't believe does not make it useless.
Now in science, we have theories. Scientific Theories are all unproven yet it does not make them senseless.
Have you had of the black hole theory? Science believes so many unproven things yet we don't call it nonsense. We keep working to find answers because we realize we know very little

Who is 'we' referring to?


There's no smart or correct answer to stupid or unrelated questions.


What I know does not have to compared to what I don't know


I don't think there's any universe or multiverse.


That's because there can never be a proof of such!


So you might not call it nonsense but that's not enough for it to make sense to anyone except you!

tctrills:
That's a personal opinion. You really don't have the authority to decide for others what makes sense.
Again, there isn't any one specific definition of spirits. We all have a definition that is shaped by our religions and experiences. So which of the definitions are you talking about.

I don't decide .,.it.... it's like saying I made it so.


It makes sense TO USE for demonstrating how spirits exist if anyone can demonstrate how spirits exist with it.


For those that say humans possess spirits,why not determine how spirits exist just as the heart is explained before seriously using the term SPIRIT?


Not useless comparisons and analogies

tctrills:
There are so many things man hasn't been able to prove. We still have a long way to go. The things we don't know are more than what we know. Maybe one day we would understand spirits better

Let's define in a way that makes sense first


Spirits are not to be known because the definition of spirits doesn't make sense

Nerogaming01:
What is a spirit kind sir?

Nobody has been able to determine how spirits exist.



I ain't saying there is no specific possessor of a specific way to exist that I am not yet to discover.


But I think it's impossible for spirits to exist since they are not defined in a way that denotes the existence of something specific.


We learn everyday for as long as we remain exposed but the term SPIRIT doesn't carry any specific proof of something specific except it's about a drive or an alcoholic stuff.


Your drive is not capable of existing outside your awareness in the presence of a surface unlike what some people falsely suggest.


The robot cannot be human.... check out the names.....human.......robot.... they're not the same... that's enough.


There must be a difference or differences!!!!!!



So, I don't know what specifically happens after death or the total deterioration or break down of surfaces that combine to either move or remain stationary not just because of forces in Physics but also because of the relevance of accidental changes in the direction of the forces but I know it has nothing to do with a spirit.


I don't think there's a limit to what exists so there's no beginning and there's no end as regards existence which means there's nothing like ALL THAT EXISTS OR UNIVERSE anywhere.


There are always possessors of ways to exist and these possessors also possess surfaces such that these possessors either combine to remain as a specific arrangement or split to either remain in the absence of an arrangement or combine in a different way towards some other arrangement.



The idea of saying no possessor exists until you detect it is unfortunate.


How can you prove your detector is a limit to existence?


If you're speaking of space and time, how are the definitions of such terms meant to prove something must not be preceded by something else?

You would say to exist means to happen from 6am to 6pm.....why define existence according to your limits?



Are you the only possessor with limits?