₦airaland Forum

Where are the atheists in the house? Please tell me how Atheism is Logical? That's a very simple question for you guys for sure. I need more warriors.

Reyginus:
Not just a radio station. People saw it, I smell it, I know the mad man, and I heard it. You see, I'm not even contesting the authenticity of the story but what really is happening. I don't understand. I'm hundred percent sure the story happened what I don't understand is why. By the way, how did you know hard mirror is telling the truth? And once again how's Atheism rational?

hehehehehehe
yeah, that's what they all say.. irrational people.
no one ever sees these things happen.
even if all evidence points to the other direction, they will still believe anyway.
but will question someone else's rationality

I don't know if hard.mirror is telling the truth or not.. but based on evidence he provided, I will say I believe him 30% cos I have witnessed most of the scenarios he mentioned in my own part of the world...
and the other 70% because I cannot verify everything he said personally.

FunkyMetahuman:
hehehehehehe
yeah, that's what they all say.. irrational people.
no one ever see these things happen.
even if all evidence points to the other direction, they will still believe anyway.
but will question someone else's rationality

I don't know if hard.mirror is telling the truth or not.. but based on evidence he provided, I will say I believe him 30% cos I have witnessed most of the scenarios he mentioned in my own part of the world...
and the other 70% because I cannot verify everything he said personally.

30%? Wow! Evidence? Lol. These atheists sef. So you brought a 30% evident material that I should swallow and talk no more? How did you arrive at 30%? How do you even belief it is a human typing these words and not an AI robot? No. No. That last question was unnecessary.

Reyginus:
30%? Wow! Evidence? Lol. These atheists sef. So you brought a 30% evident material that I should swallow and talk no more? How did you arrive at 30%? How do you even belief it is a human typing these words and not an AI robot? No. No. That last question was unnecessary.

the only story I asked you read was his explanation about speaking in tongue..

have a good day.

FunkyMetahuman:
the only story I asked you read was his explanation about speaking in tongue..

have a good day.

I don't understand. Why did you ask me to read his story?

Reyginus:
I don't understand. Why did you ask me to read his story?

ok

FunkyMetahuman:
ok

No, it's not. Why did you ask me to read his thread?

Reyginus:
Your answer is simply Yes, Atheism rejects deities. Now let's try non theism. Does Non theism reject the idea of a God?

'Any of a range of concepts regarding spirituality and religion which do not include the idea of a deity in the form of a theistic god or gods'

This is Non theism according to Merriam Webster. Do you agree with the above definition. We could do an etymological examination of both terms if you disagree.

In fact let's begin. Do you agree that a word is correct etymologically or by definition?

No. I didn't say it rejects gods or deities per see. It is simply a question of accepting the fact that when a propositions is made and that proposition is not supported by evidence the proposition should be rejected. I.e. if you say (propose) that you have a magic goblin living in your basement which communicates telepathically to the world and I better be friends with it or it will burn my skin for an eternity, I will find your proposition to be extraordinary, and i expect you to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

I am, in the context above, using the definition "Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities." as can be found (among other places) wikipedia, and which is similar to the one you are referring to (webster) above.

However, atheism is not rejecting the notions, or idea, that such a proposition _could_ be valid. It simply observes that the burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, many atheist believe in various things from lucky charms to ghosts and big foots. Being an atheist does not mean that your life is governed by the scientific method, although the chances for this is significantly higher than for the rest of the population. Functionally non theism and atheism can be regarded as equivalent in this context.

JFAH:
No. I didn't say it rejects gods or deities per see. It is simply a question of accepting the fact that when a propositions is made and that proposition is not supported by evidence the proposition should be rejected. I.e. if you say (propose) that you have a magic goblin living in your basement which communicates telepathically to the world and I better be friends with it or it will burn my skin for an eternity, I will find your proposition to be extraordinary, and i expect you to back it up with extraordinary evidence.

I am, in the context above, using the definition "Theism, in the field of comparative religion, is the belief in the existence of deities." as can be found (among other places) wikipedia, and which is similar to the one you are referring to (webster) above.

However, atheism is not rejecting the notions, or idea, that such a proposition _could_ be valid. It simply observes that the burden of proof has not been met. Furthermore, many atheist believe in various things from lucky charms to ghosts and big foots. Being an atheist does not mean that your life is governed by the scientific method, although the chances for this is significantly higher than for the rest of the population. Functionally non theism and atheism can be regarded as equivalent in this context.

This is a new definition of atheism. Atheism is simply after the burden of proof? Is it really that there's no evidence or it's not sufficient? And does insufficiency or lack of evidence invalidate a thing?

FunkyMetahuman:
I think you are just talking for talk sake.
take care my friend.

C'est fini. Maradonaing himself. From God to unexplainable events, what next?

sonofluc1fer:
C'est fini. Maradonaing himself. From God to unexplainable events, what next?

Lol. Scarry guys. He believes HardMirrors story even though he's got no evidence but says I'm lying because I have no evidence. Lol. Let me scare you too, how is Atheism Logical? Lol. He'd run now or attempt some pun.

Reyginus:
Lol

That's your most intelligent contribution.

Reyginus:
Scarry guys.

Yeah. Scarred by your illogicality.

Reyginus:
Hello believes HardMirrors story even though he's got no evidence but says I'm lying because I have no evidence

Who?

Reyginus:
Let me scare you too, how is Atheism Logical?

Same way it's logical to acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to show the accused is guilty of the crime. That's common sense. Conman sense is the prosecution expecting the defense to do their job of finding evidence. Lol. What nonsense.

You're like a lonely ugly girl in the middle of the dance floor, begging and crying for a partner to dance with. Me, I don commot club.

sonofluc1fer:
That's your most intelligent contribution.


Yeah. Scarred by your illogicality.


Who?


Same way it's logical to acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to show the accused is guilty of the crime. That's common sense. Conman sense is the prosecution expecting the defense to do their job of finding evidence. Lol. What nonsense.

You're like a lonely ugly girl in the middle of the dance floor, begging and crying for a partner to dance with. Me, I don commot club.

Okay. I agree. But how's Atheism Logical?

Reyginus:
Okay. I agree. But how's Atheism Logical?

sonofluc1fer:

Lol. So much for atheist intelligence.

Reyginus:
Okay. I agree. But how's Atheism Logical?

Prove your God exists already... If not park well. You can't be asking if atheism is logical just because it's asking you for evidence of the existence of Yahweh.

I really don't know why you are making so much noise, the simple thing u need do is ask your God to prove himself ymto doubters or ...

Reyginus:
This is a new definition of atheism. Atheism is simply after the burden of proof? Is it really that there's no evidence or it's not sufficient? And does insufficiency or lack of evidence invalidate a thing?

So far _no_ evidence of _any_ kind has surfaced which support _any_ of the theistic propositions out there. Lack of evidence for a proposed hypothesis shoots a very big hole in it...

*) "a disbelief in the existence of deity", Webster, deifnition of atheism. A fairly common definition which is aplicable in the context outlined above. Disbelief can be turned to belief if the proper conditions are met.

frank317:
Prove your God exists already... If not park well. You can't be asking if atheism is logical just because it's asking you for evidence of the existence of Yahweh.

I really don't know why you are making so much noise, the simple thing u need do is ask your God to prove himself ymto doubters or ...

Lol. I'm not arguing for the existence of God but simply how Atheism is Logical? Is that too much for you?

JFAH:
So far _no_ evidence of _any_ kind has surfaced which support _any_ of the theistic propositions out there. Lack of evidence for a proposed hypothesis shoots a very big hole in it...

*) "a disbelief in the existence of deity", Webster, deifnition of atheism. A fairly common definition which is aplicable in the context outlined above. Disbelief can be turned to belief if the proper conditions are met.

You didn't really answer my question. I'd repeat. Does lack of evidence invalidate truth. Was Einstein's Theories of Relativity Wrong but became Truth after scientists confirmed it?

Reyginus:
Lol. I'm not arguing for the existence of God but simply how Atheism is Logical? Is that too much for you?

So what's illogical about someone asking you for evidence of a claim and rejecting the claim until proven to be fact?

You didn't really answer my question. I'd repeat. Does lack of evidence invalidate truth. Was Einstein's Theories of Relativity Wrong but became Truth after scientists confirmed it?

Depends on what you mean by 'truth'. If you discuss Einsteins relativity theory specifically; no it (in reference to the theory) wasn't true before it could be validated by experimental evidence. The evidence used to infer the hypothesis where in themselves present but not inherently 'true' or 'false'.

It was an hypothesis, built on observed data, and it was a very strong hypothesis, especially as it was setting forth testable propositions (which could be defined to be true or false in their paradigms). As these propositions have been supported by experimental data, it has gone from hypothesis to a theory (which is the gold standard in this area). If the hypothesis would have failed meeting those criteria, Einstein would have been just a footnote in history. N.B. just because it has been tested and found to be working doesn't mean it could not be improved. The theory is not 'true' in the sense of a boolean algebra sense. It is simply our current best working model for specific envelope of physical properties. The general relativity breaks down in the very small (hence the use of quantum mechanics). The mere fact that both of these theories breaks down in the intersection with one another indicates that we are missing a center piece, AKA the unifying theory which we get glimpses off every now and then but still is elusive. But we know its there, and there is work ongoing to find it...

Still proudly possessed...