₦airaland Forum

Emusan:
Whatever, at least you take it as fact without testing!



The point is, no testing of it but you take it as fact.



You can't say "You don't know just because of the purpose of this thread" you already take Big bang as fact.

So, you don't need to test before taking things as FACT. That's the point.

Do you have comprehension issues or you are dyslexic?
I said I don't know!

Workch:
it's like asking me how do I know aliens don't exist

Just answer the question sire

MaxInDHouse:
Ọmọ if you can't figure out why humans from time immemorial and in all geographical locations on this planet are searching for God then there's no need mentioning me atheism is dead and buried!

Lemme humor you a bit.
Humans look for gods when they cannot fathom some phenomena like flood, disease etc. Now that science has ramped up its game and can give explanations for such, humans are seeing their folly in their god beliefs and recoursing to science. Areas that are more scientific inclined tend to disbelieve in gods.
Reason why Africa is more religious than Western world.

Emusan:
So how do you test Moses parted red sea?

Was there any evidence it happened, in the first place?

vdestro:
The test of a miracle is in itself in that it is beyond the natural course and flow we know.

So lets say you get diabetic foot and it got amputated. You show up in church and your pastor lays hands on you and pronounced you healed, but your foot is still missing.
20 years later, your foot is still off.
Pray, how do you determine if you're healed?

vdestro:
See another lie from devil scientist because he knows most nigerians church folk do not like sciences and are easily distracted by the toys and stupid boastings they make.

It is impossible to test the past Tests can only be carried out on things found or things fabricated.

It is impossible to test the past

Ever heard of carbon dating, Remote Sensing and Stratigraphy?
Which century did you pop out of?

Emusan:
Do you even understand what is called Miracles?

I guess you don't!

What is a miracle, kind sire?

Workch:
the question is a non sequitur

Lol. You know the answer, and it completely kills your case.
I rest my case Your Honor

Workch:
in science, it's necessary to disprove a claim with evidence before you reject it. I know you re an atheist, so we know atheism is not scientific.



I have not seen a leprechaun creating gods, I don't see how that matters here.

Is agnosticism scientific?

Workch:
we have scientific fact that a human can not cause thunder, it's a fact. We don't have scientific fact as to whatever start or how the universe started. It's why a diestic God question remains very open

This is flawed. Humans can cause thunder but you are simply agnostic to it

Workch:
it's like asking me how do I know aliens don't exist

Its a yes or no question, kind sire.
Is it too difficult to answer?

Emusan:
Do you shout all the time?

He did that to achieve something and now it's time to wait for the judgement.

"The Lord isn’t really being slow about his promise, as some people think. No, he is being patient for your sake. He does not want anyone to be destroyed, but wants everyone to repent." - 2 Pet 3:9

In The Book of His Noodly Limbs, Spicy chapter 4 verse 19 state "I, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am God. I created all the other gods including Yahweh, Allah, and they all bow before me in obeisance"

triplechoice:
The agnostic position when summarised is simply this;

I'm not going to take a definite position on the matter until I have all the facts concerning it .


In other words, I'm maintaining a neutral position, and not much interested in the discussion yet until there's enough evidence to assert something confidently.



That's it about agnostism at a glance.

Those who accuse agnostics of being sympathetic to theist don't know the difference between deism and agnosticism, and have also spoken from a position of bias .

A theist can equally make the same accusation since agnostics have not made any definite god claims, or support the ones made by any religion.




While an agnostic is someone who wants to be sure of what it really is before concluding, the theist and atheist, are opposed to each other from a position of false certainty caused by limited knowledge.

Deism shouldn't be confused with agnosticism. Deist, not agnostics, are the ones who claimed an unknowable God that doesn't interfere in human affairs.

Okay. Nice theory.
Lets be practical.
Now answer this...
Is there a dragon hovering above your head right now? Yes or no is the answer.

Emusan:
The same way you accept the fact Big bang happened.

Actually the Big Bang Theory was postulated by a Christian like you. Not an atheist or agnostic.
Also there are competing theories about the origin of mankind, of which Big Bang is one of them.
My own decision…. Lets say I don't know. None of them have provided unassailable evidence to back their theories

Emusan:
You think so!

Yup. In the Bible, he was all active and vocal, sending fire to consume peeps and all. Now… radio silence

Emusan:
I don't get your point here!



Well, you can't test miracles from God because it's never from Man.

Though many Theists as regards traditional religions claimed theirs can be tested.

So if we cannot test it, how did u know for a fact it happened?

Emusan:
Well you can't test Theists claim using scientific methods.

Theists claims are based on MIRACLES which means beyond natural processes and anything that beyond natural processes is beyond human comprehension.

If there should be a Creator called God then He should be the one who will tell us how to find Him and not us suggesting a way to discover Him.

How come he's suddenly shy and in hiding from his creation?

elated177:
Workch, how do you think thunder works? Would you say that thunder was created?

Another fruitcake. Worse than MadMax. On his own league

Workch:
No I haven't, but I have seen people make numerous claims of it.
If I see a pastor heal an HIV patient that I tested by myself, I will believe in miralces, if not I will be a fool to believe it because I saw it on TV

No go far. Just bring an amputee for them to heal, and watch the drama unfold

paxonel:
have you ever seen a sick man healed miraculously before?

There's spontaneous remission of some diseases which is being researched and has many causes. However it happens in both theistic and atheistic individuals. So the god claim is automatically trashed

paxonel:
how do you test religious claims?

Same way we test everything

Workch:
It's not, atheists don't know, they just don't believe he exist.
Atheism is not based on knowledge, they are the opposite of theists.

How do you know there is no dragon flying above your head?
Its not a trick question. Just answer it direct

MaxInDHouse:
They've been silenced for good that's why they will rather go after misinformed religionists as they know very well that when it comes to REASONABLENESS their hide and seek can't work with me.

How can someone who didn't dispute gravity and black holes simply because those that raised the ideas back it up not with the sight of Mr Gravity and Mr Black holes but the reaction of objects around that area dispute the faith in God that all mankind throughout history have been thinking of how to worship?

Is it not the same logic?

What is dragging mankind throughout history and in all geographical locations on this planet to worship what they can't see if there is no God/Gods?

I now understand why Workch don't bother engaging you. You're filled with all flavors of bullshit. Your last sentence showed you have no idea what basic logical reasoning is. You don't even care to analyze your statements through. And you claim youre an intelligence officer? Terrible!

Workch:
Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

I asked a question in the previous thread. You didn't answer. Lemme rephrase……
Is there a red donkey sitting on your head?

Workch:
How does this relate to the question of a god?

Dont you think that you are confused here?

Humor me. Just answer the question and you'll understand

Workch:
My definition of God is something that created everything. We have so many concepts of God that are not creators, but I'm not interested in them. I'm interested in that one that is capable of creating everything.

Stay on that topic

Youre further deepening your hole.
You haven't proven the existence of this 'god' yet you're sure there is a creator god. Isn't it interesting?

Workch:
I don't think anything created us. I'm agnostic.
Theists think so, since I don't have evidence against it yet, I cannot outrightly reject it, especially the deistic concept.

I think that anyone who should reject it should clearly demonstrate to us with a counterevidence .

You see a chicken inside your bedroom. You didn't keep it there and your door was locked tight by you. I walk up to you and tell you that the chicken was sent by your village peeps. Would you believe me? Yes or no

Workch:
irrespective of what you use to arrive at a god, it's something that is capable of creating what we see today.

I decided to look up the word god for perspective and clarity.

1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

I noticed you took up the Abrahamic definition, which makes me think you still have some theist thoughts lingering around.

Workch:
I don't know the definition or attribute of God.
One only attribute I think a god should have to someone that is capable of creating us.

Aha! Here we go
1. What if 'god' is actually a tiny and weak entity that cannot create any being?
2. Cant you see your theist background is influencing your definition of this 'god'?

jaephoenix:
Lemme wade into this discourse. Since you don't know whether a 'god' exists, how do you know the definition and attributes of a 'god'?

As an addendum…
Why don't you use the word kjrls or ajrrfve instead of 'god'?
If the said 'god' appeared to you to prove itself/herself/himself/Bleep-self etc, how would you recognize it and process the fact that its a 'god'. Or would it say "Hey, Workch here I am, I'm god" before you now become a theist?

Image123:
He's a man deeply frustrated by people's prayers. Don't blame him much.

This discourse isn't for simpletons. If you don't have the mental capacity to engage, why don't you watch that beautiful paint on your fence dry instead of meddling irritably? Notice your brethren like MadMax, Vdestroy (aka Dtruthspeaker) and EnemyJah have melted away.

Workch:
Lol, LordReed. You just don't want to accept that we don't know if a god exist or not hence we should stop disbelieving it or believing it.

Lemme wade into this discourse. Since you don't know whether a 'god' exists, how do you know the definition and attributes of a 'god'?