₦airaland Forum

Just keep your religion to yourself.

TenQ:
Then you are forcing a stubborn stalemate. Can you find me a dictionary that has the word agnostic-theist

It's not any kind of stalemate or at least the stubbornness is from you. I already attached a screenshot of the definition of agnostic-theist in a previous response but you ignored it because you are dead set on proving your error as right.

TenQ:
I think you are still bent on forcefully using the phrase "lack of a belief" rather than the logical antonyms of belief such as Unbelief, Disbelief, Doubt.

If theism is defined as a belief in a deity,
Atheism should be properly defined as Unbelief, Disbelief or Doubt in any deity.

The phrase "lack of a belief" isn't the antonym for belief.

See the attached screenshot.

Wrong answer.
How can you claim a disbelief on something you don't even have an idea about.

You should have asked the simple question: what is akokuja?

What if I told you that akokuja is an ancient Sumerian word meaning "myself"?

Do you truely disbelief in Yourself?

You are the one who is wrong. It is exactly because I didn't know what akokuja is that I lack belief belief in it. I actually searched for the word and nothing came up. How can I have a believe in what I don't know? The correct answer is I lack belief it. I don't even believe you are correct that it means myself. Post a link to evidence that it means what you say it means.

jimmynauty:
Gen 1:14 And Elohim said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

TenQ:
Only babies can lack a belief and the reason is obvious. The concept of deity get formed after some level of cognition is built in a child.

Why are you scared or apprehensive of the replacement of "lack of belief" with the proper antonym words like Disbelief, Doubt, Unbelief: knowing that these are the exact opposite of belief?

Could it be that the use of the words lack of BELIEF is calculated to do something else?

Will you agree that anyone/anything that cannot reason will lack a belief?

A lack of belief stems from lack of cognition.

Let me ask you a question:
Do you believe or lack a belief in akokuja?
Please tell the truth?

LoL! I see your problem now. The definition of atheism as lack of belief is not exclusive of other forms of atheism, rather is inclusive of all forms of atheism. There are atheists who actively disbelieve in all gods, I am not one therefore the most basic description of what makes I and these other types of atheists is our shared lack of belief. So there's nothing like I am afraid of using those words. If lack of belief is calculated to do anything it is to make sure all forms of atheism are captured.

Of course something that cannot reason will lack belief, it couldn't hold belief in the first place. That doesn't remotely equate such incapable things with humans who have no belief in a god because the humans can have beliefs.

A lack of belief doesn't only stem from lack of cognition. It is like saying the only way an organism can ingest food is through a mouth while completely ignoring organisms that ingest food via means other than mouths.

I lack belief in akokuja.

Image123:
Normal is to be okay or acceptable.

So in societies where homosexuality is okay and acceptable it is normal.

TenQ:
That is a compound word. I am not sure any English dictionary describes an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. What we have are people's description of it. I can easily post the dictionary definition of atheism,theism and agnostism but not agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist

I use a Webster's English Dictionary (nothing like that)

How wrong is my definition:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

Not going answer your question until you post a screenshot of the meaning of agnostic theist. When you do we can discuss if the meaning you posted is wrong or not.

Image123:
It has many conditions and experience attached. It clearly doesn't mean all sickness will be healed otherwise Jesus Christ will not tell His disciples that they will have trouble or that sickness will continue until the new Earth. They or we will have just asked in the "whatsoever" you refer to. Neither Jesus nor they(the early disciples) nor any serious Bible student understands it in the way you want it.

Lemme reiterate what your question was:

The Omnipotent didn't promise you to heal all your sickness, did He?

Your question wasn't "did the god promise to always heal all sicknesses". This is a different question as it introduces a factor other than the nature of the disease itself. Your initial question asks if all diseases were promised to be healed while now you are saying there are conditions necessary to be fulfilled for the healing to take place.

BTW where did Jesus tell his disciples that sickness will continue until the new Earth?

TenQ:
Is my definition wrong?
If it is wrong, how?

I want you to post a screenshot of the definition of agnostic theist just like you did for agnostic.

TenQ:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

How come you aren't showing me a screenshot for the definition of agnostic theist?

TenQ:
Exactly the point. Only creatures without a reasonable human level of cognition can lack a belief.

A human being can
1. Doubt a belief system
2. Disbelief a system

A baby cannot even be called an atheist UNTIL his cognitive level becomes reasonable.

In other words my friend, atheism is NOT a LACK of belief as you have been misled to think

This is a faulty conclusion. That one set of things share one characteristic does not mean they share all other characteristic, that is a fallacy. It is like saying because dogs and goats eat therefore humans who eat are not reasonable, you can't use a share characteristic to imply another characteristic.

Humans can lack beliefs or doubt or actively disbelieve, your dichotomy is a false one.

Also your final conclusion is fallacious since your premises are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief.

TenQ:
That's why I said the AGNOSTIC prefix negates the THEIST suffix.

Agnostic theist is simply a person who does NOT believe in a deity but has a leaning towards the deity for other reasons.

An Agnostic claims NOT to know, so how can he believe in what he doesn't know?

Post the meaning of agnostic theist.

TenQ:
No sir.

Check the attachment

You left out the theist part. Find the meaning of agnostic theist.

TenQ:
Will you agree with me that Goats and Dogs lack a belief in any deity?

How are ATHEISTs similar?

Rocks also lack belief in gods but we don't describe them as atheist because we reserve the term for beings that have our level of cogitation. Goats and dogs do not have our level of cogitation so we don't call them atheists. It is one of the reasons I don't think it is appropriate to say babies are atheists, their level of cogitation is still low.

TenQ:
I am asking what the agnostic theist claim he believes in: is what he believes in the "Deity" or "his common sense to self preservation"?

He believes in a deity.

jimmynauty:
I accept micro evolving but reject other evolution..app to man theory.

That is because you don't realise that "micro evolving" is the first step. All the products of evolution are a grand summation of all the "micro evolving" that has occurred over MILLIONS of years.

jimmynauty:
So when will man evolve to something higher?

Evolution does not have hierarchies so there is no "higher" evolution. In any case there is no way to know when definitively since it is always ongoing. Humanity is changing as we speak but it is so slow, glacially slow. Take for instance average human height has been increasing for some centuries now but if you just took a sampling now you might not notice the difference.

TenQ:
You have stated what atheism isn't. But what then is atheism?

I actually have a problem with the definition of atheists as people who lack a belief or absence of a belief in any deity. To me, it's a senseless position for a rational human being to lack a belief about a subject he has taken a position upon.

I think the problem is the definition of belief in context of a deity.

I submit that the position of atheism itself is a belief irrespective of how you argue against it.

Here we go again. How can the lack of belief be a belief? How can not playing sports be a sport? You are the one coming up with a senseless proposition. Someone says I don't believe Santa Claus exists and you say he is being senseless, no, you are being senseless.

TenQ:
Agnostic before theist negates it.

I asked you a question:
What precisely does an agnostic-theist believe in? (I didn't ask what a theist believe in)

You mean what specific god? It would depend on the individual, there are Christian agnostic theists from what I gather. And no, agnostic does not negate his beliefs.

TenQ:
Not really.
He says in the case God exists, let me play safe.
If however God doesn't exist, I still have nothing to lose!

He is only trying to logically take a safe position

He is a theist, he believes in god.

TenQ:
Can you please tell me what you think he (the agnostic-theist) truly believes?

He is just a lottery player in a game of chance!

I think the agnostic theist believes a god exists.

Image123:
Little wonder you remain confused as ever or even more than ever about God, the Bible and being a Christian. You can't be more catholic than the pope reed, you can't claim to understand God or the Bible more than the people that follow it and claim that it works for them. You need to know, because it is those that KNOW God that will be strong and do exploits. All you are doing is like video editors who just pick different sections that suit their fancy and join it together, cutting out large parts for their own reasons.
We that know God and know that God answers prayers and have seen God answer prayers are the ones you should pay attention to. Pay attention to Peter, to Paul, to the Word of God, you are obviously paying attention to yourself. The people that God directly told the things you are saying have a different understanding of it from you, no wonder they have different result and relationship.

The Matthew 16 you quoted, Peter was the one directly spoken to and he immediately tried binding and losing Jesus in verse 22. Thank God that he got to know that it doesn't work that way. May you also get to know. Matthew 18 that you quoted, if you read the whole chapter, you would see the promise was premised on things like unity and forgiveness and verse 35 was very specific about what happens to those who do not forgive, they don't get their desires for example. The John that you quoted came with his brother and mother to worship and desire whatsoever from Jesus, they did not get it. Thank God that they got to know that it doesn't work the way you feel. If you choose to, you can stay stumped on where you are and never get anything done. It is your choice. The scriptures clearly teach those who study it that God is not a button, He is God. Ask Paul, and Epaphroditus, and Peter and Timothy, and James. Read the fine print before running, it's got lots.

LMFAO! Very simply, whatsoever doesn't include all diseases or its not a guarantee is what you are saying.

Image123:
Actually, my argument is that natural is not NORMAL. That something is natural does not make it normal. Like i said if you read instead of trying to pry into my imagination, there are natural cheats, pedophiles and liars. It's clear enough from my signature i think.

You wrote:

Image123:
. We are not animals. It's like saying some animals are carnivores or they move naked and behave animalistic so we should because it's their nature.

As if anybody argued that we should copy animals.

Define normal.

jimmynauty:
Why and said by who?

Because evolution is always ongoing, there is no "crown". Said by the theory of evolution.

caspee:
The question has given me sleepiness nights
What is our purpose in life??
Why were we not left uncreated
Why suffer?

Maybe my meaningless ranting should be ignored....

Your purpose in life is what you make of it. And you can have multiple purposes with variable durations. You have the rest of your life, live it the best you can.

hupernikao:
They were taught.

The primary role of a prophet is not as you see it falsely displayed today. Primary role of a prophet is to teach God's word. And you will see that evident in all the OT prophets. They taught so that men will believe.

Moses, is a central example. He was a teacher of the word. His teaching was the basis of every other writings in the Bible. That's to let you know how much he taught.

That is the primary role of a prophet. God's spokesman is to teach oracle of God. Other things are secondary.


So those in the OT were taught and have access to the teaching of God's Word through their prophets.

No one just believe in the bible sense. Believing in itself is a product of knowledge. Knowing who or what you believe.

And faith is a product of faithfulness which in itself comes from a proper knowledge, a knowing of the person or things.

Bible is an embodiment of teaching that provides knowledge of God's faithfulness thereby persuading you to have faith in him.

Which prophet taught Noah or Abraham?

TenQ:
An agnostic-theist doesn't believe anything. He is only being rational. He says "let be join them incase...".

How then is he a theist if he doesn't believe?

jimmynauty:
So man is the crown of evolutionary standard?

No.

StJohnofChrist:
Yes God promised whatsoever, but you failed to understand it doesn't stop there. But that it has to be inline with his will.
You just built your argument on "Whatsoever"

Is it that you don't understand the question or what? He asked did his god promise to heal all diseases? How does saying you need faith now negate the fact that the text says WHATSOEVER? Are you saying all diseases are not included in the whatsoever?

Of course God promised whatsoever but you can't pray for someone's death and God grants that.

Even when it's his will, you have to believe to receive.

You should be telling Christians who pray for their enemies to die and believe that the god answers their prayer that not me.

StJohnofChrist:
There are methods of communication, linguistics and such.
There are parts of speech, figures of speech, irony, sarcasm.

Sarcasm for instance, do you need to interpret it when it is clearly said or written?

Is the whatsoever in the text figure of speech, irony or sarcasm?

hupernikao:
The bold isn't true.

Faith begins when God's will is made known (knowledge).

Bible teaches, to know and to believe. If Bible is about believing we wont have teachings there. The numbers of teachings in the scriptures are to enormous and that disprove what you wrote.

And hope you know the essence of teaching? It's to deliver knowledge.

Did those who didn't have the bible (in the OT) know and believe or they just believed?

StJohnofChrist:
You quote it challenging the sense in it as though you clearly understood it meant what you interpreted it as.

Why do I need to interpret what is clearly written? He asked did his god promise to heal all diseases and I quoted texts that say WHATSOEVER and here you guys come saying it doesn't mean what it says. How is that my problem?