₦airaland Forum

Sapiosexuality:
Nice one? If a thing meets the criteria of a feminine human, would it still be considered rational to describe his physical attribute as masculine?

akintom:
Using this your above analogy.

If a 10 years old boy who lives alone with his mother, in a three bedroom flat, suddenly or gradually begin to search in a manner of looking for hiding friend(s), as it obtains in a hide-and-seek game.

The mother then asked the boy, who he's searching out. The boy says, my friends that are hiding in this flat.

Haven established the following:

* the mother is sure it's just two of them in the flat, at that particular time.

* the flat is fenced, and no other person within the compound.

Despite these, the boy still insisted that his friends are hiding in the flat.

At this point, the mother can rationally suspect hallucination, delusion, disorientation, sleepwalking etc.

This rational suspicion, is based on the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE of any friend in the flat.

Therefore, absence of evidence, is the evidence of absence.

frank317:
Nope.... But what's ur point?

Sapiosexuality:
Seems I've thrown you a nice analogy. Very good. But then the mum doesn't know for a fact it's just the both of them in the room. She, just like the little boy, just believe so. Isn't that the position of atheism?

Now, the mum who also base her statement on just her belief in her high fence(not really a hundred percent house search) laughs at the boy for his disorientation, isn't this the surest indication for cancer?

Sapiosexuality:
Seems I've thrown you a nice analogy. Very good. But then the mum doesn't know for a fact it's just the both of them in the room. She, just like the little boy, just believe so. Isn't that the position of atheism?

Now, the mum who also base her statement on just her belief in her high fence(not really a hundred percent house search) laughs at the boy for his disorientation, isn't this the surest indication for cancer?

akintom:
I can now on reasonable ground, conclude that you're not to be taken seriously after all.

*you quoted falsely, and pointed it out to you. A decent mind will apologize for that. Not you.
*in the analogy that i just gave, i asterisked extraneous factors. Yet you're throwing up here.

Your subsequent post may not get a reply henceforth, as i don't find creeps interesting.

Sapiosexuality:
How would arguing for or against a belief make one an ignoramus?

BaEnki:
Okey bro, its very simple and I'll make thid as simple as possible;

Now think about the different religions group and sects we have on this planet, all sworn their allegiance to a God though with different creation stories but still hold the believe in one High God, yet they argues and fight each other to please and defend the same one God, to me it's a fool that argues or fight on a vague course.

You hold your peace on your choice of belief and I hold mine.

To me the concept of God/creator is so vague.

akintom:
This rational suspicion, is based on the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE of any friend in the flat.

Therefore, absence of evidence, is the evidence of absence.

akintom:
Nobody cares if you mistake shadow for a lion. But if you mistake lion for a shadow, you sure will impact all the folks that care about you.

Sapiosexuality:
Is that so? Just like that? But if it were to be about God your ink will never spot any idiocy to illicit dryness.

If I had made it about the ineffectiveness of Religions you could spend lines cussing and the urge to let stupidity be will never get a pulse.

The only ground to quit at this point is that same one the theist is possessed with when he's struck out but his ignorance, haven taken quantum leaps, seeps out arrogance. It is self destructing. You've got no reasonable ground to quit now.

BaEnki:
Hello,

You misunderstood my philosophical term, I'm not talking about mistakes here.

Sapiosexuality:
But no two religions, at least in Nigeria, believe in One God. You can show me otherwise.

Splinz:
Are you then using mere SUSPICION from the mother of the boy to conclude that the ABSENCE of EVIDENCE of other people in the flat is indeed EVIDENCE of ABSENCE?

Have you also consider the possibility of:

*Other people scaling the fence into the compound unknown to the mother except the boy?

*These intruders hiding somewhere in the flat unknown to the mother?

Remember, the mother is merely suspecting, not that it is an established FACT!

So then, ABSENCE of EVIDENCE in this case doesn't necessarily translate to EVIDENCE of ABSENCE because further investigations could prove that indeed, people did scaled the fence and entered the flat unknown to the mother.

akintom:
You see, on intellectual and honest discussion, I say this with all sense of responsibility, am at distinction mark.

Judging from your submission here today, you're simply -

*intellectually bereft of honesty and decency.
*fraudulent in your rebuttals
*incoherent in thought
*mischievous in infantile type

I have indulged you on the above irritating intellectual misdemeanors, and beyond reasonable doubt, you don't worth my serious attention.

I don't quit, i simply let fools writhe in filth.

akintom:
You can as well hello what you're talking about.

Sapiosexuality:
See, he's ready to dwell on irrelevancies but can't continue.

Simple question, show me how Atheism is not more cancerous than the theism forced down our throats and of a sudden he selects who's beneath his intellect.

But you atheists stay here all day ridiculing folks and at the same time admit there place on the intellectual ladder is beneath your feet. What exactly changed now, Mr Atheist?

You opened a thread ridiculing people you assume are beneath your intellectual radar but you can't engage and ridicule a new lump of intellectual mischief? Isn't that a contradiction?

Of course you and I know the question is the problem. My stake is still open. You can share it among your atheists friends. Any one in this Forum, in Nigeria or anywhere who can show me how Atheism is logical I'd DEACTIVATE and pay you a sum.

BaEnki:
Seriously I don't know maybe you're kidding here, but let me clear your doubt if you ain't,

I studied the Yoruba religion(īfa) and I come to term with the fact that Olodumere means the supreme God which the ifa priest worships in a way contrasted to the Christian's way.

Allah is an Arabic word which still means the Almighty/supreme God, yet there are still many sects in Islam, and their worship mode too contrasts the Christians'.

So may I ask you, who is right in the world? And who is wrong? Some people call you a sinner for worshipping your God in your own way? Were they right, who is right in the scheme of things then? I'll say nobody because they all justify their wrongs to be right. Like I've said earlier, the concept of God is very vague. So I'll rather remain an Atheist.

BaEnki:
This is not for me though, but whatever

---

Arguing for or against religion is irrelevant to me,
Won't I be stupid to be arguing how logical Atheism is or how illogical deism is?

As a grown up, we have reasons for our actions and conclusions which according to me should be kept private.

Sapiosexuality:
See, he's ready to dwell on irrelevancies but can't continue.

Simple question, show me how Atheism is not more cancerous than the theism forced down our throats and of a sudden he selects who's beneath his intellect.

But you atheists stay here all day ridiculing folks and at the same time admit there place on the intellectual ladder is beneath your feet. What exactly changed now, Mr Atheist?

You opened a thread ridiculing people you assume are beneath your intellectual radar but you can't engage and ridicule a new lump of intellectual mischief? Isn't that a contradiction?

Of course you and I know the question is the problem. My stake is still open. You can share it among your atheists friends. Any one in this Forum, in Nigeria or anywhere who can show me how Atheism is logical I'd DEACTIVATE and pay you a sum.

akintom:
Yes, as long as you remain intellectually dishonest.

Sapiosexuality:
I'm not kidding, I'm serous.

There's a difference between the idea of the supreme God and the supreme God. What Ifa religion, like every religion do, is to project an idea of the supreme God.

These ideas, owing to difference in Modus Operandi, never agree on the nature of the Supreme God. Different characters are operationally mutually exclusive.

The Arabic word for God is Ilah and not Allah. Allah is different from Olodumare in both operation and accepted worship. Their natures, as described the respective religions, are different, and thus cannot be the same.

The right person is the one who responds to a property with respect to its nature. A person who steals takes what doesn't belong to them. The man who knows what we call the ones who steal among us is the right one.

Sapiosexuality:
Are you interested in what is true?

akintom:
You're all empty claims, in the very class of religious folks.
*you present no personal ideological/philosophical stand point of yours here.

*you're irritatingly dishonest (omitting salient points in my comments, when you're replying).

* you're stupidly fraudulent (by quoting falsely, without apologizing when i pointed it out to you).

* you're mischievous in the infantile type (you kept going over the same question, without discussing my answer first).

How am I supposed to engage a shifting cloud like you?

Your challenge has been cleared, by the least entrant into atheism.

BaEnki:
Your subtilty disagrees itself, I wish we could talk this on phone I hate typing much

Projecting an idea totally differs from submitting to the same idea, talking about God's nature? Even Pope or Adeboye won't convincingly explain that, reason we have many factions in all religions affiliation all over the world, The truth is you can't understand a vague concept no matter how you tries.

BaEnki:
Truth is subjective bro.

What's your truth?

Sapiosexuality:
Easy lines. It seems at this level your IQ does the Midas Touch with everything. What really is the problem:

'I present no philosophical point of mine, I'm dishonest, fraudulent or mischievous?'

Mr Atheist, is my crime simply that I called atheism a belief or what exactly?

akintom:
You may have to read my story again.

You're the one saying the mother is under "suspicion", not me.

Hastiness is the mother of foolishness.

akintom:
Your crime is your attitude, that insulted intellectual honesty, which is extremely odious to an intelligent mind.

If there's any element of decency in you, go back to my answer, which i gave to your question on how logical is atheism.

Then you will be making a coherent sense here.

Splinz:
Oga, stop fooling yourself. You said the mother "rationally suspected" the boy of hallucinating, based on ABSENSE of EVIDENCE.

Suspicion, however rational it may be, still doesn't change the fact that it is still SUSPICION!

Sapiosexuality:
Truth is subjective? Can I then, using my subjective truth, say, your truth is objective? Whatever I say makes sense? Does subjectivism has a limit and what takes over when it reaches it?

Truth is constant. If it is, our understanding of them–even though poor, will never denature it. Like Tom said, a lion is a carnivore, you can show us it is a herbivore by going close to it.

BaEnki:
You've been answered Mr Sapiosexuallity by yourself, nice nickname bro. Truth is not constant that's why its subjective. A mad man in his objectivity is always right same thing to a drunk man, that's his truth but a false to you..

Tom was right to you, but he wasn't to other men.