₦airaland Forum

musKeeto: Alright, but I doubt me and logicboy share the same beliefs/non-beliefs...

Maybe not everything, but Im sure there is some common ground.

Purist: LOL. Logicboy is more of an antitheist than he is an atheist. For some reason, I see him converting back to Christianity some day.

Purist: @jayriginal:

At what point does one become an unreasonable atheist? The point at which one positively asserts that NONE of the Abrahamic gods exist, or that point when one who dismisses all the numerous god concepts altogether?

Personally, I am largely convinced that neither the Christian God nor the Muslim Allah exists.

I mean reasonable in your manner of approach.

Its not difficult to write off the Abrahamic gods, but that will not invalidate the existence of a god/s.

This article examines the brain/mind and the concept of dualism/materialism in connection with the "soul".

It is well referenced. A very good read, but quite lengthy.

http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/ghost.html

musKeeto: Or it could be trying to avoid saying yes in order not to submit to one, don't you think?
Is anyone definitely sure there's no God? Are even the theists definitely sure there's a God? Where then does doubt come? Does one who is certain ever doubt?

I speak for myself when I say I don't and can't know everything.. That's why I consider myself agnostic. Wonder why no one says agnosticism is a religion?

Brilliant !!!

Now you see something, one could say that if atheism = no god, there can hardly be any atheist. However, atheism = a lack of belief in god, which covers agnostics.

No one, but no one can say for certain whether there is god or not. ESPECIALLY our theists who assert there is a god, do not "know".
What we have are different interpretations of "evidence". The easy way out is to say "god did it".

You my friend are an atheist and a very reasonable one. The man who says he knows that there is no god has a lot to tell us.

You dont believe there is a god, Im quite certain of that, but you dont extend that by asserting that there is no god.

musKeeto: Do you believe THERE is a GOD? not believe IN..

to this an atheist would say NO. an agnostic would answer MAYBE...

It makes no difference as the result is the same. Lets use your modification.

Question : Do you believe there is a god ?

Atheist : No. (Very clear and direct).

Agnostic: Maybe (just trying to avoid saying no, which is where the joke about having balls comes into play). The truth is, there is no halfway between belief. You either do or you dont. The "maybe" answer is actually a no, but sounds non commital. You cannot maybe believe or maybe not. Saying you dont believe there is a god is not the same thing as saying you believe there is no god.

musKeeto: Not at all. I only thanked Delafruita for pointing out a popular misconception..

Lol

musKeeto: wow.. delafruita.... thanks a lot..

You seem to think that I am attacking the concept of agnosticism. I'm not. I'm only pointing out a popular misconception.

Delafruita: an atheist does not believe there is any deity.he doesnt believe in any god or the idea that a god exists.

an agnostic on the other hand doesnt completely rule out the idea of a god.he just doesnt accept any of the religions around him and the god they preach.

many a time,agnostics dont accept some theories put forward by atheists such as the theory of evolution simply because such theories have not been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

agnostics dont transfer disbelief in one entity into belief in another.they want proof for any theory and wont just accept a scientific theory as proof just because it negates the god theory.

agnostics are generally receptive of all ideas and sometimes embrace all religion and beliefs without committing to any

To test for atheism only one question is necessary; "Do you believe in god ?". The rest na jara.

So, would you say an agnostic believes in god?

mkmyers45: Lemme re-phrase how do you as an atheist repent of bad deeds?

Even the term "repent" seems to be a religious concept.

Do atheists do things they regret ? Of course.

I'm not even sure how to address this cos the word "repent" is interfering with my thoughts.

I'll just say along with plaetton

plaetton: Show contrition, make amends, and take steps to see it doesnt repeat itself. Simple

Purist: It's not wrong. Positive atheism, Strong atheism, Explicit atheism. Do those terms sound familiar? There, you have the "typical atheist" I refer to.

I'm very familiar with them. They simply try to pin point your precise position. It takes nothing from what the general term "atheist" means.

There's this atheist page I subscribed to on Facebook and they once made a poll asking their followers to vote on a scale of 1 - 10 how "atheistic" they are: 1 being very religious and absolutely believing just about everything their religion says literally. And 10 being completely atheistic -- completely convinced that gods of any kind do not and cannot possibly exist, leaving absolutely no room for doubt. It may surprise you to know that Option 10 got the highest vote.

Richard Dawkins did something similar in one of his books, I think The God Delusion. If my memory serves me well, his own scale was from 1 to 7, with 1 being very religious and 7 being completely atheistic (as in positively knowing/believing that gods do not exist). It may surprise you that Dawkins put himself on a 6 not 7. What does that tell you ?

As for the facebook poll, those who subscribed to the poll, their backgrounds may count. I was discussing with a friend who lives in Atlanta and she said in the US, if you call yourself an atheist, it goes more than not believing in god, it means you believe there is no god. Who knows, majority of those who put themselves on 10 may have similar backgrounds.

In any case, I havent seen the poll and the description of each of the elements of the scale. Like I said earlier, there are atheists that hold that there is no god. There are those that do not believe there is god but will not assert that there is no god. Both groups are atheists.
You have a demarcation when you want to single out a person (for instance) so as to know what kind of arguments to employ against that person.

Let me use an example. Its like plants and animals. They are both living things. Or, dogs and cats; both animals. The word atheist is a general classification encompassing everybody who does not believe in god. It is only when you go into specifics that you may encounter these other terms.

Sin, I think, is a religious concept. Now if it is, how can a person without religion "sin" ?

Double Post

Purist: Well, there's a reason why there's that distinction in the first place. While I agree with you that some agnostics may label themselves so to avoid the unpleasant tag of atheism in the eyes of the religious, the fact still remains that there is a distinction between both positions to begin with - that certainty/uncertainty aspect. The typical atheist is cöck-sure that there is no god of any kind anywhere. The agnostic on the other hand, either thinks that there is a possibility, however slight, of there being a deity; or that such knowledge is currently beyond us - basically, we're not yet "smart" enough to know whether there really are gods or not.

"Afterall, you cannot believe in something you are unsure about (or can you)." - Well, you cannot disbelieve in something you are unsure about either (or can you?)

Your bolded is wrong and that is a major source of confusion on this issue. There is no "typical" atheist. An atheist is one who does not believe in god, not one who believes there is no god. Indeed, there are atheists who believe there is no god but that is not what qualifies them as atheists.

As for your response to the coloured, it is not necessary, but to answer you, YES you can disbelieve something you are not sure about. I dont think you phrased the question properly, but note that there is is a difference in believing there is no god and not believing there is a god.

All you need to consider is the question: does an agnostic believe in god ?

If your answer is no, he/she is an atheist.
If your answer is yes, then an agnostic can not possibly be an atheist.

You may feel free to answer "An agnostic does not believe in god but does not disbelieve either", however only the first half of the reply is relevant to determine whether or not the person is an atheist.

I seem to recall having this discussion with you a while back.

mkmyers45: I have to strongly disagree strongly with you... Agnosticism can also infer that someone is not ready to choose sides on the God subject doesn't necessarily make them a coward..

You are reading too much meaning into that quote. It was a joke.

Purist: The fact that one is unsure does not mean they don't have balls. I believe that agnosticism is a very intellectually honest position. You don't know, you don't pretend to know, and sometimes, you just don't care. Simple as that. Nothing to do with balls.

Well, it depends on how you look at it. Being unsure of whether there is a god or not still makes you an atheist as it means you dont believe. Thats really what is important ; whether you believe or not.

Its not to say that there is anything "dishonest" about calling oneself an agnostic.

If you accept that an agnostic does not believe in god, then you accept an agnostic is an atheist. Afterall, you cannot believe in something you are unsure about (or can you).

Now about the balls part, atheism comes with many negative connotations in the eyes of the religious and so one might take the softer option and declare oneself to be an agnostic since it seems to be less offensive than atheism (generally).

Declaring oneself an agnostic may be due also to a genuine misunderstanding of what atheism is (very common) and not a lack of balls.

However, the way I read that quote of LogicBoy, I understood it to mean that an agnostic is an atheist who wishes to avoid the repercussions that come with declaring oneself an atheist.

Purist: Although I do realize that this is meant to be a joke, I hope you also realize that it is grossly misleading.

Clarify please.

mkmyers45: Well although many won't admit it so many atheists on here are actually agnostics so i will like to throw this question out to everyone...What are the features/characteristics/nature/personality you are looking out for in a God?

An agnostic is an atheist.

An agnostic does not believe in god.

As LogicBoy jokingly put it, an agnostic is an atheist without b[i]a[/i]lls.

tobechi74: Atheist belive in God .YES THEY DO. they are just fed up because he seems not to react to the sufering and evils of d world.they think proclaiming him nonexisting would make react.

And you know this how ?

fellis: Hm?

I was acknowledging your response.

fellis, I see you.

frosbel: At the end of the day, the best evidence I have for my belief in Christ is my personal relationship with him.

And alien abductees have their personal experience too. You dont believe them do you ?

fellis: The thing about some atheists is that they are not completely sure God doesn't exist. On a scale of 1 to 10, their certainty is somewhere between 6 and 9 (I know; I've asked) so it is possible that they engage in arguments in order to convince themselves that there is no God and to finally be 100% sure, instead of living in doubt.

You asked all ?

An Interview with Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka


The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 17, Number 4.

As long as there have been dictatorial military regimes in Nigeria, writer Wole Soyinka has spoken out against them. Championing democracy over the last 30 years earned him a two-decade prison sentence. The current regime, under General Sani Abacha, has given Soyinka a death sentence that has forced him to flee his homeland. He now lives in the United States, and is Emory University's Robert W. Woodruff Professor of the Arts.

Soyinka is the first sub-Saharan African to win the Nobel Prize for Literature, which he received in 1986. He is also a Laureate of the International Academy of Humanism. The author of the book The Open Sore of a Continent continues to work for freedom in Nigeria. The following interview was conducted by Norm R. Allen, Jr., Executive Director of African-Americans for Humanism.

FREE INQUIRY: Do you consider yourself a humanist, and if so, how do you believe that humanism differs from a more religious perspective?

WOLE SOYINKA: Humanism for me represents taking the human entity as the center of world perception, of social organization and indeed of ethics, deciding in other words what is primarily of the greatest value for humans as opposed to some remote extraterrestrial or ideological authority. And so from that point of view, I consider myself a humanist.

FI: There are several humanist groups in Nigeria. What do you think is the prospect for the future of humanism in Nigeria?

SOYINKA: I take most of my metaphors from the Yoruba worldview. What separates that religion from the so-called universal world religion is that the human characteristics of the deities that belong in the Yoruba pantheon actually make that religion one of the most humanist types of religion you'll encounter anywhere in the world. The Yoruba philosophy drastically reduces the absolute authority of deities over the lives of human beings and therefore reduces the dependency of human beings on the interpreters of the extraterrestrial authority. And so when you ask the question "What are the prospects of a humanist worldview in Nigeria?", I point to this as an example of some kind of qualified humanism that predates any kind of codification of humanistic principles in European terms.

FI: You and some other Nigerian dissidents had been accused of treason by the Abacha regime. Are you in contact with any others who have been accused of treason?

SOYINKA: I've been in indirect contact with the others, and I'm very much concerned about them because they are in the clutches of one of the most insensitive tyrants that the African continent has ever known. One can only ask Abacha what goes on in his diseased mind and what his police tell him.

FI: I wanted to ask you about your book, The Open Sore of a Continent. In it, you are critical of the Nigerian military dictatorship. Please discuss the government's 1995 execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other activists.

SOYINKA: It was easily the most barbarous action ever undertaken by any regime within the living memory of that continent. In Africa we are used to mindless massacres in the name of ethnicity and religion, but I think this stands out on its own because it's an action that is purported to have followed rational judicial process. It was a total travesty of everything that judicial processes should stand for. Anyone should be able to understand what kind of regime we're dealing with after that. Why wait for further proof? Who could expect anything positive to come out of this regime?

FI: In your opinion, how have Western powers responded?

SOYINKA: The response has been a mere slap on the wrist. Actions have been token. This is a regime that should be totally isolated economically, culturally, diplomatically, until its termination.

FI: You dedicated The Open Sore of a Continent to the late humanist Tai Solarin. Who was he, and how important was he to Nigeria's pro-democracy movement? [See "An Interview with Tai Solarin," FI, Winter 1993/94, pp. 37-41.]

SOYINKA: Solarin was an indefatigable warrior in the cause of democracy. He was a passionate secularist and humanist. He was opposed to dictatorship in all forms. He believed very much in freedom of expression, freedom of choice, everyone's participation in the structuring of society, irrespective of sex, creed, and tribe. He had always been a gadfly, a thorn in the flesh of corrupt governments. He was jailed several times. His whole career was one of combativeness against injustice and tyranny, and his loss was a great one.

FI: What role does religion play in Nigeria's political strife?

SOYINKA: It never used to play a very strong role, but it has been deliberately cultivated and exacerbated by the present regime. Right now religion has become a tinderbox within the political structure. Nigeria is far more religiously intolerant today than during my childhood. I was raised in a Christian home, and we lived side by side with Muslims. My family would join the Muslims in observing their festivals, and they would do the same. They would feel offended if my family didn't send them food at Christmas, things like that. It is as if the intolerant aspects of these two religions were sort of mediated by the worldview of the soil on which they took root. There was an accommodativeness about both these religions as well as the traditional religion of Yoruba.

But of late, I'm afraid the insanity of the rest of the world has transferred to Nigeria, has been deliberately cultivated by the Abacha regime, and we are beginning to witness more and more religious strife. There have been really bloodthirsty face-offs between Christianity and Islam in many parts of the country, and even within the sects of the Islamic religion. It is a very dire outlook, I'm afraid, a complication of what is already a bad political situation.

FI: Some writers have argued that African fatalism, most of it rooted in religious beliefs, has done much to make the people apathetic. Have you found this to be true?

SOYINKA: No. You have a continuing history of resistance to or from tyranny in Africa. It is true that they are long periods when the people are totally powerless. But that strain of resistance always runs very deep.

FI: Do you expect democracy to come to Nigeria and if so, when?

SOYINKA: I am not a prophet, but I can assure you that the people of Nigeria will continue to struggle for fundamental dignities. They will continue to struggle for democracy.

FI: How do you feel about the fatwa against Taslima Nasrin in response to her written work? [See "The Songs of Freedom," p. 40.]

SOYINKA: I have nothing but contempt for religions that kill in the name of piety. I find it false, dangerous, and I think that Taslima is the heroine of that society, and the others simply are throwbacks. If they believe passionately in their deity, they should reserve to that deity the authority to exact vengeance. They shouldn't make themselves the instrument of imagined wrongs. That applies to any religion, it applies to the insanity between the Hindus and the Muslims in India, to the Jewish extremists in Israel. It applies to any kind of religion in the world.

FI: Following the death sentence placed on Salman Rushdie by the Ayatollah Khomeini, you issued a strong statement in Rushdie's defense. How was your statement received by Nigerians in general and by Muslims in particular?

SOYINKA: There was a lunatic fringe that issued a fatwa against me, who carried placards screaming "Death to Soyinka" and so forth. But Nigeria is as far as I'm concerned a secular state, and whatever efforts are made by some fanatics to turn it into a bastion of one religion or another really didn't bother me much. The others responded to the threats against me in a very robust way.

FI: Louis Farrakhan argued that Nigerians have only had a few decades to attain democracy and that Westerners must be patient with the slow painful climb toward democracy in Nigeria. How do you respond to this view?

SOYINKA: Nigerians fly the latest jets, we have some of the finest pilots in the world. Technology and cyberspace are not strange to Nigerians, they are used on a daily basis. Faxes and cellular phones abound everywhere. The Nigerians didn't say that they were going to wait 1,000 years before they caught up with modern technology. The latest cars, like the Lexus, are already cruising in Nigeria. I don't believe that mental apprehension of democracy is beyond those who acquire a more complicated facility for operating the latest gadgets. I think it's a very condescending statement, and should be deplored.

FI: How are you doing in the face of such constant threats?

SOYINKA: Well I have to live in constant mental identification with those who are in jail in Nigeria, undergoing the same struggle. Some of them have been given 15 years for not committing any crime at all. And so because of the constant sense I have of the wrongs against the Nigerian people, of which these are representative, I have no time at all to think about my own difficulties.


http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/soyinka_17_4.html

[quote author=Mr_Anony]Too bad for you. If you really can't tell the difference between choice and ability, then I honestly can't help you.
Besides, I have not given any explanation. I have only pointed out that the conclusion he drew does not follow from the verse he quoted.[/quote]Mere bluster. You've said nothing. Thats ok.

dare2think: Please read the question again and check the answer,you may notice the flaw. I actually did not see any significant maliciousness as I thought he genuiunely made a mistake or just avoided trying to say ' I believe there is no God'. All that was irrelevant to me anyway.

See the coloured, that is the answer YOU wanted (likely stemming from a misconception of what atheism is). This is why I tried to explain to you the differences between the the three possible answers and to show you that LogicBoys answer was not only valid, but explained his position in the clearest way.

Reference my allusion to "trick questions".

dare2think: To make it clearer:

*Do you believe that there is no god? = and the typical religious answer would be 'no', because he believes that there is a god.

* Do you believe there is no [/b]god?= would the typical atheist answer also be 'no'?,

Again, you are looking for a specific answer. You have employed the fallacy of simple question.

Here, let me make it simple for you. Answer this with a yes or no.

"Have you stopped beating your wife" (lets assume you do have a wife).

Whether "yes" or "no", you would have given a definite impression which may be far from the truth.



And oh, by the way, when I made reference to traps and trick questions, I was not implying that you were being malicious. I was just saying that there was a trap in it and LogicBoy avoided it.

Let me give you another kind of "trick question" : "If you dont believe in god, how were you [b]created "

[quote author=Mr_Anony]I am not being crafty at all. I am just trying to get you to argue properly. God did not fail. That a person did not do something doesn't mean that he cannot do it.[/quote]You must distinguish between being unable to do something and refusing to do something.

What difference would "iron chariots" make to a god ?

Your explanation doesnt work yet. You need to tweak it a little more.

Mantraa,

you might want to look into Edward Current's youtube channel. He does some nice satire.

You asked "Do you believe there is no god ?"

You wanted him to answer either
"Yes, I believe there is no god" or "No, I do not believe there is no god". Instead he answered, "No, I do not believe there is god".

What he has done is to go beyond your question to express his stance to avoid any ambiguity. It is not uncommon for one on nairaland to try to spring a loaded question, and when the other party inadvertently walks into the trap, the first poster tries to claim a "victory".

dare2think: I actually understood his answer! But I actually asked that question in a specific way and he answered wrongly which was likely unintentional on his part.

Do you believe that there is no God? Cannot be answered with a preceding 'No' from an atheist stand-point as you are attesting to the fact that you believe that their is a God.

Hope you get it. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

Actually by rephrasing the answer like that, you are trying to put words in his mouth. You want him to say what you want to hear.

I'm pretty sure he meant to say "No, I do not believe there is a god" which is quite different from "I believe there is no god".

You can't try to trick someone with a question. He has answered in his own way.

By asking "Do you believe . . ." you have carefully packaged a trap, but he saw it and set the record straight.

MacDaddy01: No, i dont believe that there is a god.

dare2think: Reading through your answer again dude, I'm not sure you answered correctly.

It should be; Yes, I believe that there is no God

dare2think, both sentences have different meanings. LogicBoy's meaning is clear but I dont think you understood him.

litusista: hi guys. I'm also a newbie in python. actually it was some guys I met here on NL that suggested I go for python as I need to write an encryption algorithm for my final year project. the thing is i have started but recently almost every program I write has indentation errors and since i'm using textbooks, its not that interactive. I dont mind if I can get someone who can help or probably send links and good tutorials to my email. I use python 2.6 at the moment and i also use the IDLE to write my codes. I really need all the help I can get cos I have a a limited time frame work.

I think you need to be careful with your loops and branching statements (you might be putting certain statements in blocks where they shouldnt be).

Im not sure why you would have indentation errors unless the errors are from the book itself (assuming you are following it faithfully).

Its not so bad to have errors as they force you to find a fix and make you think. Thats crucial when learning a programming language. Also, IDLE indents automatically so I'm not sure why you get those indentation errors.
Keep at it though.

Good luck.

PS
You might provide a small sample of your code showing the problem.

davidylan: lol you do exercise blind faith, you're just not honest enough to admit it.
How can you hold a theory "credible" just simply because it is "willing to undergo scrutiny and modifications" even when current evidence suggests it is just flatly wrong?

Nope. Sorry, no blind faith. Maybe I should spell it out for you. I dont believe in evolution. Clear enough for you ?

Now when weighing creationism and evolution, evolution comes out looking smarter.
Why ?
Because its willing to keep looking until it sorts the whole business out clearly.

Isnt that strange?

Not if you call it "random chance".

Siamese twins are not an evolutionary by-product but a result of a clear biological anomaly.

Ok.

If that's the case then did we really need 2 lungs to adapt to our environment?

Thats not a question I can field authoritatively. I could answer, but I doubt it would prove satisfactory to you.