₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
My point is, how adherents see it might not necessary be how it is. And philosophising is what "intellectually robust and unequivocally honest" people do. And since you'd bother to use such words, hopefully, not flippantly, I hoped to hold you to such rigour. After all, its not like you would ask others to be "robust and honest" and you be a lazy hypocrite.

The poor go looking for "gods, spirits, devils", joseph, yet "figurative expressions" is exactly what they are, figurative expressions to denote that which is not exactly comprehended, but which hark back to the very beginning of human attempts to reflect, which is what philosophy is and science even. The wealthy however, are "intellectually robust and unequivocally honest" and end up coming to different understandings through their hard work and effort.

Christianity for instances specifically teaches, do not create figures nor bow down and worship them, and [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+25%3A40&version=KJV]do for[/url] those here whom you see and whatever Father might be in heaven will be pleased. So, why should an "intellectually robust and unequivocally honest" Christian be concerned with "the elements therein - gods, spirits, devils", and not an understanding of what those words might mean and or imply? Is it not specifically written "no one has seen God"? And yet here you are asking that God be presented to you on a plate.

I'm going to consider that what you are doing here is looking for the "elements therein" for that which is meant in spirit, so to speak. But know that it is foolish to learn calculus from random people on the street whom you dictionary define but who might not have defined themselves by a dictionary.

LordReed:
Huh? Are you forgetting conversions?

budaatum:
The evidence for gods (not existence, mind), is the vast amount of written word that exists on the topic. It's probably insufficient for you if you expect physical material evidence that you can weigh and measure. The tortoise and the hare in Aesop Fables does not exist, yet we learn quite a lot from the fables about them. Philosophy too cannot be measured or weighed, yet no sane person would claim philosophy does not exist.

"Disbelief (and belief) is not at all in the business of searching or knowing". It is about making things up in ones head usually with very little attempt to understand before believing or disbelieving it, and is what I've called "intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest". An "intellectually robust and unequivocally honest" person would first seek an understanding of what is meant instead of discarding it as you are so swift to do. It is afterall in no way intellectually sound to reject (or accept) claims one does not understand. And asking 'Christians' and 'Muslims', who can only proclaim what they believe, is like asking random people in the street about calculus. But then, your question is about "exist", so you're probably asking the right people. You'd go elsewhere if you were seeking to understand.

As to straw, I'm relying on the fact that unlike your belief about me, you yourself "know the meaning of the words you use". If you did, you'd see this thread is all about strawmanning, as in stating the beliefs of some and equating it to the understanding of all then whacking it all down. Nowhere have I found you seeking to understand the obfuscated complex issue called gods which have existed even since humans have reflected.

And yes, "not good enough" for someone of your intellectual ability. Though I confess that's just a belief of mine.

budaatum:
I do like the condescension. It shows what you think of my intellectual capacity.

If I create crap in my head called a phone that cooks, and cannot provide evidence for it yet ask you to believe such a phone exists, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believeng it myself if I say I do, and moreso for asking you to believe my crap without providing evidence so you may know instead. For as you say, "for lack of evidence, it is intellectually robust and unequivocally honest to disbelieve in a phone that cooks", though, I, being a sceptical person, would check first. Someone might have somewhere welded a cooker to a phone.

The only reason I can believe or disbelieve in the existence of phones that make calls, even, is because of my ignorance about phones that make calls. If I were not ignorant about phones that make calls I would know about phones that make calls instead of ignorantly believing or disbelieving whatever it is about phones that make calls that I believe or disbelieve.

Theists (who predominantly happen to be believers, and not knowers and understanders) are not intellectually robust and unequivocally honest and neither are their counterpart atheists who disbelieve gods exist or believe gods don't exist. There is quite a lot of 'evidence' out there about gods and for the existence or lack of existence of gods, so atheism and theism, in my opinion, is, or rather, should not be about "evidence", unless we mean a lazy person who has not bothered to check (and consider) the available evidence. It is also very lazy to believe or disbelieve the available or lack of available evidence once checked, in my opinion, instead of attempting to understand what the evidence or lack of evidence might mean or imply.

The intellectually robust and unequivocally honest ought to know either way and understand, instead of believing or disbelieving the crap they think up in their own heads, is my point, and if I were to ask you to believe or disbelieve anything at all, then I am intellectually lazy and unequivocally dishonest and would be insulting your intelligence and you must treat me with the contempt that I deserve for believing or not believing it myself and moreso for attempting to make you ignorant and dishonest like I would have been being myself.

It is the religious education most get that allows them to use words like believe and disbelieve, is the point I'm making here. Intellectually robust and unequivocally honest people ought to know, either way, instead of believing and or disbelieving. Or does one believe or disbelieve or know or not know about Pythagoras and his theorem, and would the use of either of those words say nothing about the one who used it?

budaatum:
Believing and not believing in a god are actually both neither intellectually sound nor honest, unless one were using the word "believe" to denote "not exactly knowing". One can after all believe or not believe whatever pleases one but neither has any bearing on reality.

I can understand the believer in God however, for they are saying they know not, even if they do not realise that is what they mean. But I can't say I understand an atheist who claims to believe there are no gods. My opinion is that they are intellectually unsound and dishonest, and lazy too, because, if they had truly checked and found there to be no gods, they would not believe there are no gods, but know there are no gods.

"Believing in a god", however is of a different order, I would have thought. To start with, asking an atheist who has bothered to check and found no god to believe in god would be like asking one to believe in the spending.power of a non-existing million pounds, which I must admit would be absurd for "the most intellectually robust and unequivocally honest [person] to hold”. Though, one must ask if they know what is meant by the word "god", to begin with, because the intellectually robust and unequivocally honest would have begun with a definition of terms.

So let me help.

To Believe is to not exactly know but choose to accept as true the unfounded crap one makes up in ones head.

To not believe is to not exactly know but refuse not to accept as true unfounded crap others make up in their own heads.

God, well, that's really a word with no exact meaning in the wider sense, but which is narrowed down by where one stands.

And atheist [ought to] mean the crap made up in heads is crap, who one would expect them not to believe, but to have honestly checked the evidence so they actually know, and if they haven't, they are just as intellectually dishonest and not robust as the theist who merely believes as equally as they seem to disbelieve.

Those who are intellectually robust and unequivocally honest do not believe or disbelieve because they would have checked and would know.

budaatum:
I see every book worth reading as one I can learn something from. Its entirely up to me if it makes me wise or stupid.

budaatum:
I think you are the one inferring that Jesus is a fraud. God doesn't bear children as far as I know, and I don't exactly see where I've defended the Bible.

What you could possibly be accusing me of rationalizing is my own understanding of the Bible, which I haven't done yet, though I do think limiting the over 1000 pages of a book to what you have is irrational.

Do you seriously think what you've listed as the Wisdom in the Bible is the Wisdom in the Bible? Does Wisdom not apply to one's own understanding?

budaatum:
What's laughable is that you think what you read in the Bible is literally true. Have you considered the story you read might just be a cover up for Joseph's infidelity with Mary?

Mujtahida:
Omo na wa ooo. So if ball pass defenders na goal. Akpeyi no be am

forgiveness:
Africa is not yet free from colonialism in regards to neocolonialism.

I don't think that supports development.

rabzy:
Chief the trans-saharan slave trade as been on for centuries before the transatlantic slave trade. The Arabs raided and enslaved people in mali, senagal, etc and the slavery is still on in many parts of these countries. African tribes were up for the taking, there has always been competition between tribes and kingdoms as long as man can remember. If you can't defend yourself, you are a goner. Shikena, has nothing to do with race or colour.

Bash92:
Was in Primary school during this Ghana/Nigeria afcon. I can never forget that final and seing Oliseh crying like a baby, I burst to tears after the penalty shoot. I could only stop crying after dad told me it will be replayed, till date we never replay am. Just like someone mentioned earlier Cameroon are our major rival in Africa, Ghana and South Africa follow from behind. Good luck to us in the against South Africa.

ChrisKels:
This team is better than all the teams we have played so far. They are winning us convincingly, not scrappily. Open ur eyes mister