Johnydon22's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Johnydon22's Profile › Johnydon22's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 (of 489 pages)
lilmax:
|
Sapiosexuality:Actually agnosticism is atheistic in a broad sense. |
CandidSeeker:Good then... Affirms point |
Samsimple:Atheism is the disbelief in God(s).. Niaraland religious section treats the subject of God, so we are here to air our own opinion on the subject of God.. |
mujahid777:Believing in an uncaused God isn't irrational? Imagine the irony and consonant conclusions on uncausality packed in this one post.. Funny ![]() |
mujahid777:Last I checked I referred to my definition as socially hinged not atheistic.. Haaaaaa.. |
BaEnki:probably |
Atheism is the opposite of religion This is typically found among atheists especially new ones. Somehow most people mistake irreligiously for atheism which is not so. One do not necessarily need to be religious to believe in God. And one also do not necessarily need to be irreligious in order to be atheistic. Though it will be fair to note that irreligiousness is mostly found in atheists but there are also people who believe in God but are not religious. One can be religious and still be atheistic, there are numerous religious practices that exempt or are indifferent to the existence of God. Irreligiosness is the direct opposite of religiosity A truer statement rather is that Atheism is the opposite of theism https://i.pinimg.com/736x/02/d8/4c/02d84c5e7f266e671a5c363974b88c56--atheist-quotes-atheist-agnostic.jpg |
BaEnki:I was not even active on nairaland, how so am i popular in 2017 |
I have been on this board for years and one must be forced to admit that all the arguments we go through here have seen numerous recycling. It is not so surprising because the argument of whether God(s) exist or not will always remain an Inconclusive one But there are also some arguments here that are nothing but just silly. Some absurd arguments unworthy of attention due to the gross misrepresentation or just naivety of the arguer on the subject. Here are a list of arguments i think should not cross over to 2018. Atheism is a religion As ridiculous as this sounds, it still somehow manages to crop up every now and then. Atheism is just as much religion as theism and theism is not a religion but a position. I will try to simplify this to the most fundamental build-up so that whoever brings it up again, we all will agree is an id-iot. Theism - Belief that God exists: This is not a religion, it is just a label for exercising belief in God or Gods Atheism - Disbelief in the existence of God: Just like theism this is still not a religion but rather a label to quantify the position of unbelief in deities. However. Religions can be formed based on Theistic and atheistic principles. For example: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism are religions based on the fundamental principles or assumption that God exists, Broad atheistic religions like Buddhism, Jainism, Taoism lack this principle, either in denial of Gods or a clear indifference to the subject. Imagine Theism or atheism as beer crates. In the theistic crate you find A bottle of christianity, Islam, hinduism, ATL and many others. Removes these bottles, the crate will still be there. Same goes for atheism. So to say Atheism is a religion is just an imbecilic as saying a crate of beer is a bottle. https://static.parade.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/iStock_000055592912_Medium.jpg Without God, where do atheists get their morality from? This argument is used often and mostly from a naive standpoint. One must first of all understand the average atheist's stance on morality. Morality is a societal construct, a society makes and sets it's own rules and laws, stipulates it's own morals and this is hinged on a basic definition. "Anything that decreases human suffering and directly or indirectly affects general societal well being, justice, equality, freedom and continuation" This definition is socially hinged. On the other hand, a sin is a religious construct and this are actions that goes against God's will. A sin therefore is not necessarily societally wrong. Atheists do not really bother what your religion regards a sin or not, No. Atheists are humans in a human society therefore are guided by human laws and ethics as stipulated by the society. And also react to certain actions out of empathy, compassion and love and these are human emotions. Who created the universe? First, this argument invokes the logical fallacy of begging the question. By using the "term" who, you have already determined that your answer must be a "who" therefore whatever answer that falls out of this predetermined expectation scope is invalid and wrong. Rather the correct question is "How did the universe came to be?" with this your answer can either be a "who" or a "what" Again, this argument also is a projection of argument from ignorance, if you do not know how the universe came to be therefore God. Being an atheist doesn't give you a first row seat during creation, factually we all can only speculate and assume or trying to scientifically connect the dots of creation through scientifically observed facts. So we may disagree on our world view on how we think it all started but do not assume up or impose a position on the atheist argument until heard. more to follow.... You may also add yours. |
frosbel2:Pope Leo X put this well enough, His declaration revealed to the world papal knowledge of the Vatican's false presentation of Jesus Christ and unashamedly exposed the puerile nature of the Christian religion. At a lavish Good Friday banquet in the Vatican in 1514, and in the company of "seven intimates" (Annales Ecclesiastici, Caesar Baronius, Folio Antwerp, 1597, tome 14), Leo made an amazing announcement that the Church has since tried hard to invalidate. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted: "How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors." |
felixomor:Because he is a Christian |
If i don't slap her, she will personally poison me.. You dey crase? what is slap?I will tear her one slap for the money and another one for jaraaaaa.... |
Give God your money in a man's bank account. Anyway i don't think its anyone's concern how someone chooses to spend his/her money. You can decide to throw your money into the river, invest in a ponzi scheme or pay tithe. As long as it is your money, your decision, by all means please do it. I do not really have a problem with that. |
Horus was an egyptian God not an ethopian-sudanese God. at least get your fuccking facts right. And Jesus wasn't born on the 25th of December. Uurgh |
LOL.... I do not think people go around with the tag of "atheist" around their neck.. |
Like play like play, this sciencewatch is legit mad.. ![]() Someone please keep a record of how many times he will quote this my comment. My guess: A lot. ![]() |
haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa |
LOL not necessarily but true most of the times |
Rolex67:I agree. Guys should date only girls that can afford their own transport fare |
Boland:Correct on the notion that light requires a source and darkness doesn't (necessarily) Darkness is basically a default state. So, with both deductions, we can all agree that; Darkness occurs when/where there is no light. Light nullifies the presence of darkness.Correct. Light as an Entity proves that its energy needs to be propagated for continous existence, which also proves that it must have been designed/created.Causality doesn't necessarily mean designed. But we both agree there must be a source for light to be. Light without being well propagated will diminish, while darkness needs no such attention to exist, it simply exists where there is no light.One is a default state, the other is an effect. Here is the main question;Sun burns through nuclear fusion, the elements for nuclear fusion exists, atoms exist therefore such reactions are inevitable and are perfectly natural. Moon is not a light How can we say, there is no designer for such magnitude of energy?Because natural explanations suffice |
Gent:Honestly? I still won't be wildly keen on loving the idea of a God who would burn people for belief or lack of comformity. |
delexy123:Man still have no idea how the idea of Dragons came to the mind of the first men, we still have no reason to objectively believe dragons are real |
delexy123:I don't know, i wasn't there 2. Why is man so attached to the idea of the existence of a 'god' that it has sparked thousands years of debate which is still ongoing?Man needs an external authority or the emotional succour of an external care-taker. An unflinching need to feel so special and so loved, to feel that this life that is fleeting and vane, is not all there is. Man needs an assurance that he is not just but a cosmic accident in an indifferent universe. 3. Will there come a time when this debate will stop?I don't know though highly unlikely 4. Will there be a time when the receding ignorance will cease to be and man will know all there is to be known? (note that at this point, man would be omniscience therefore, the debate of the existence of a 'god' will cease to be).Highly unlikely 5. If there will be a time like that, will man be able to survive up to that time?Have no idea 6. If possible, what are the chances that man will be able survive and achievements that feat?Highly unlikely 7. If there is 'very low' or No chance that man will survive up to that time of being omniscience, then, why do man still debate the existence of a 'god' when he knows that he wouldn't live to proof or debunk it?Because the concept of God like every other concept man has made impacts on man's social, economic, personal, emotional life. |
malvisguy212:Yes my brother, i trust you have been well. How can there be so many wonderful and amazing CREATURES without an intelligent CREATOR to make them? as you have stated, if the atheists answer to this question is "we don't know" and yet you rue out the possibility of God creating this things,then ,this my friend is the highest stage of ignorance a man will reach.Well i never said that a creator is not required to create these wonderful things on my reply to your post, my post addressed the replacement of ignorance with God. You see the problem of - How can there be such wonderful amazing creatures without an intelligent creator creates an even bigger problem. Because the intelligent creator must be even more wonderful and amazing to be fully capable and able to create these creatures, so doesn't this also raise the problem of "How can such awesome wonderful and amazing intelligent design exist without another intelligent designer? You see we are now in an even bigger problem? if your answer is"we don't know" don't you think we must not rue out the possibility of God exitance?There is really nothing wrong with accepting or agreeing to ignorance. Without ignorance there won't be a need for us to learn anything at all. I am sure you must agree with me today that everything we know of now, we were once ignorant of it. So accepting ignorance where you lack knowledge is a mark of intellectual humility and this is a good thing, it creates room for more studies. Since we do not, it is not necessary that we assume up an answer to fill in this gap and let that terminate our research. Would you rather have someone agree they don't know or just give you any answer they want? what difference does it make when a person realizes that an all-wise, loving, eternal, all-powerful God created the first man and woman? Recognizing a personal Creator makes man much more than an animal or an accident of nature.The thing is this is an appeal to emotions. you may make yourself feel good and special by assuming a creator all-powerful and eternal who cares about you and that is totally great. But the question is: Is this true? That something makes you feel great and cozy doesn't necessarily mean it is the truth. I prefer a cold objective truth to a warm cozy special lie. |
malvisguy212:Our ignorance on these subjects are not evidence for God they are rather evidence for our ignorance. We can't just say "because we don't know this, therefore God did it. that will only make God a placeholder for our ignorance. once we cannot follow the chain of enquiry, once we come to the limit of our knowledge, we terminate our research and ascribe all that we are yet to know to God. this will make god increasingly unneeded with the more we discover and find out. |
The OP's suspicion is not entirely out of place. Yes the building obviously has some form of resemblance with the head of a reptile and it's pretty obvious. The intention behind that design however is debatable. And then recognising an extra-terrestrial race as reptilians who the building are supposed to in some way project affinity to calls the OP s claim into question. An extra-terrestrial being is less likely to resemble anything we know of on earth since anatomy and biological architecture is dependent on evolutionary trigger that differs from world to world |
TVTKOKO:I'm just going to leave this here Leviticus 20:13 "If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." You lot don't even read your own bible |
enshy:Summary: You don't have any testimony to give. well it's obvious just save us the trouble abeg |
how is this news? |
PAGAN9JA:I love this and I shared it on my Facebook wall |
Akdegreat:Beautiful questions my good man |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 (of 489 pages)

