₦airaland Forum

Sapiosexuality:
You gave me a link which I perused but couldn't see any trace of my answer. You were arguing how atheism makes sense from the angle of the burden of proof.

The burden of proof for theism is left for theism with respect to theists. The burden of proof for theism is left to theists with respect to rational skeptics. Atheism does not pass the mark for rational skepticism.

A rational skeptic freely thinks. I've been gentle on you. You know, atheists don't just claim to belief in no God, they also claim there's no God and you'd lying to yourself pretending ignorance of this.

Factor that in. How then did he or she come to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God. Inadequate theists explanations? Now we are back to the bridge. Absence of evidence is neither presence or absence of existence.

Sapiosexuality:
I'm yet to see the answer. Assuming a person holdsg lions to be herbivores and tried to feed them herbs but is killed and fed on instead, would it still be correct to say that this person was right?

akintom:
It's now established that you're not only hastily foolish, but you're now chronically cognitively lowered.

Since your incapacity still subsist, i will do this.

I said, after the mother has ascertain that there's no other person within the flat and the compound (as indicated with the asterisked points in the story), the mother can now RATIONALLY SUSPECT that the boy is experiencing illusionary episode.

akintom:
Understand that atheism is not a philosophical or ideological position.

Rather, atheism(for the lack of appropriate word) is a "response position" to the idea of the claim of existence of gods.

Below are 17 different ways, that folks respond god idea:

https://www.nairaland.com/3675917/17-kinds-atheism

I am agnostic atheists - i simply lack belief in the claim of the existence of gods.

You can take me up on this position.

BaEnki:
Yes very right, that's why there are substance induced truth, which we can really call false.

Sapiosexuality:
You are a what? Fire! Brimstones! What!!!

The words agnostic atheism is a failure of English Language. You are either an Atheist, An Agnostic, A Theist, A Deist, A Panentheist, A Pantheist, A Godist, etc., not a combination of both.

Agnostic-atheist is transliterated to mean 'I can't know if there is a God and I know there's no God'. This is the sense you'd find in words like a Married Bachelor, an Engaged Single and an Islamic Christian.

akintom:
Your opinion.
I have defined myself, and if you can't relate with that, you can end it there.

Sapiosexuality:
How does it disagree itself? How is Allah, Yahweh, Olodumere, Vishnu, etc, one and the same thing?

Sapiosexuality:
It is more than just an opinion. It is good we understand what we claim to be. The word agnostic atheist is grammatically and philosophically incorrect, so why still hold onto it?

akintom:
It's simply because your attention span is pitiably weak.

I told you earlier that atheism (for the lack of better word) is not a philosophical, ideological or conceptual position, it's simply a "response position".

Agnostic-atheism is simply a descriptive response to claims of god existence.

Enough of this your boring circus.

If you can't challenge my "response position", on factual grounds, pls hold your definitions to yourself.

Sapiosexuality:
A response position? So with what tools do we know that a 'response position' is rational? Is it beyond examination?

.

akintom:
Were it that am not on a public forum with you, i would have abandoned you to rat on in your dark tunnel.

What are you examining?

Am not discussing philosophy or logic here. The claim of god existence is the crux here.

Below is simple enough "response position".

If this isn't rational position, to claims of god existence that's devoid of observable, verifiable and substantial evidence, then you suit yourself.

By Frank Fernandez

This is your first problem. Atheist don't say that there's no god. Atheists say that they don't believe the claim that God exists. These are two very different things.

One is the rejection of a positive claim. The other is a positive claim. Someone who says they don't believe in a God has no need to disprove the God claim.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. If you claim that a god does exist then it's YOUR job to prove it. It's not the other person's job to prove it false.

If someone says the there is no God, they are now making a claim that does carry a burden of proof. But we atheists don't claim that God, in fact, does not exist. We simply reject the claims that one does.

So you can toss all the word salads you want. But you're not gonna pin the burden of proof on us. You claim that God is real, then it's your job to prove it. Plain and simple.

Sapiosexuality:
Who's talking about the burden of proof now? I thought we left that when you said Agnostic Atheism is your closest position.

Don't derail. We are still on agnostic atheism. You want to make sense but it has nothing on philosophy. Genius.

Why is this too hard for you? On what basis does this 'response position' make sense? Isn't this simple enough?

And don't throw that usual line of ad hominems that spend more than the words required to respond rationally responding pointlessly.

How is your 'response position' correct? You can use any tool you want: Astronomy, Philosophy, Etc. I don't see why you can't answer this.

akintom:
This response is for audience of this your dark tunnel groping.

Agnostic-atheist -

* theist claims god exist, i reviewed the premises on which god proposition was based, i found no substantial evidence in such claims - atheism.

* then the theist says that he knows god exist, lack of substantial evidence notwithstanding. Then i said, i don't know if god exist, and i don't know of any premises on which to probe it - agnosticism.

I simply responded to propositions on the very premises they were presented. Nothing more.

This is the reason i said atheism (for the lack of better word), is not a philosophical, ideological or conceptual position.

Sapiosexuality:
.

4everGod:
Intensely deep confusion lurks within the soul of that individual you are discussing with. He is lost to your position so predictably throws left winged jabs to try and throw you off. It has always been his MOO

Sapiosexuality:
You are confusing yourself. You cannot dismiss a thing and affirm ignorance in the same sentence. E.g:

"That man is mad AND I wont say for sure he's mad", "The girl is a harlot AND I can't say she's a harlot", "That family is cursed AND I can't say they are cursed".

Sapiosexuality:
First, you reviewed it and found it unsubstantial but secondly you've no tools to review it and they linked together.

Pidgin2:
OP, the devil is tormenting you, move on with your life and continue with your atheism if it pleases you. Open your eyes, you are wasting your time engaging in pointless debates, go and live free, you are in bondage without Christ, He is the only one that can set you free before you know it you will be old, a word should be enough for you

akintom:
Your difficulty is a common one with most apologists here. You're reading your perplexed, hazy and confused mind into my writing (a childish mischief there).

The example you gave, shows your depth of foolishness and cognitive incapacity. Because those eg are your false deductions.



I will answer you, if you admit to discussing this point as a theist.

Sapiosexuality:
My examples are false deductions but you can show how? What is even a false deduction?

No, I won't argue it as a theist. Your attempt to shift it and bring God into the discourse will not work. Seems that is what intelligence means to an atheist. You need admit theism to have their attention. Not here.

akintom:
You're a hilarious synonym for a confused mind, in an amplified level.

You neither hold theistic or atheistic views, yet you strayed in here to display pseudos.

* How can you possibly be challenging the logicality of atheistic views, when you don't subscribe to theistic views?

* it's idiotic of you, to be challenge the logicality of atheism, on the premises of philosophy or ideology. When i had repeatedly told you that atheism doesn't belong in that mode of knowledge body.

It's a pity you haven't yet seen how illogical you're, by ignorantly asserting logicality of atheism, when you hold no theistic views.

akintom:
You're an evidence of how morbidly and intellectually dishonest, christards are.

It's obvious that you don't understand a word in logic. If not you wouldn't be asking atheists, how god idea is both primitive and idiotic.

akintom:
I told you earlier that atheism (for the lack of better word) is not a philosophical, ideological or conceptual position, it's simply a "response position".

Agnostic-atheism is simply a descriptive response to claims of god existence.

akintom:
If you can't challenge my "response position", on factual grounds, pls hold your definitions to yourself

Splinz:
Since atheism according to you lacks philosophical, ideological and conceptual standing, then what exactly makes atheism a rational or intelligent position? In other word, how is this "response position" intelligent or rational?

For all we know, this so-called "response position" could be someone's dumb, irrational, and ignorance riddled conclusion, since it lacks known principles (at least you've not stated any).



Agnostic-atheism is utter nonsense and a complete usurper of the English language. Like Sapiosexuality said, whoever coined this term is worthy of serious flogging. WTF! It is akin to saying "I am illiterate-literate". What sort of buffoonery is that?



How can one challenge a position that is baseless and devoid of any known principle, on factual grounds? What is factual about your "response position"?

Sapiosexuality:
Watch how he finds words in irrelevancies instead of saying how his response position is rational.

... The guy is such a joke. Funny thing is, he only sees the speck in theists eyes but not the plank in his own eyes. Hypocrite!

enshy:
All is not well, repent and turn to God lest judgment come upon you swiftly and you perish without trace!

akintom:
Your delusion is still evolving. You should have spoken after the manner of your nazarene -

St. Matthew 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

But because you and the nazarene are amnesiacs, you both forgot how that Yahweh ordered infanticide at different times.

What your demented mind can't handle, is the fact that someone like me, has transcended the realm where irrational fears, has any meaning, other than tools for keeping mentally inept like you in religious idiocy.

enshy:
OP is right. I love this thread...I deduced two things:
1. If you read the bible and you understand it, you understand Gods principles and demands of you yet you are too carnal to yield and obey, then the easy way out is atheism. Therefore 'You become an Atheist when you understand the Bible and cant cope with Gods injunctions due to fleshly and carnal cravings'...OP was once the President of a Christian fellowship in one of the Nigerian Universities..He is an authority here, let no man argue with him!
2. OP meant to say 'You become an Atheist when you misunderstand the Bible' cos you have read with a dark, carnal, evil, devilish and demonized motive.
In conclusion, this our OP is highly intelligent ooo (ironically speaking). I duff my hat with the way you shoot yourself in the leg and yet smile like all his well.
All is not well, repent and turn to God lest judgment come upon you swiftly and you perish without trace!

akintom:
UNDERSTANDING

Understanding is a psychological process related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person , situation, or
message whereby one is able to think about it and use
concepts to deal adequately with that object.

Understanding is a relation between the knower and an object of understanding. Understanding implies abilities and dispositions with respect to an object of knowledge sufficient to support intelligent behavior.

-Wikipedia

Understanding is a precursor to intelligent behavior. Paul the apostle was a lawyer (according to Bible), this made him presumably an intelligent man.

[b]But when he attempted to understand the bible (the whole documented stories, of religious evolution of Jews), so that he could make intelligent proposition, Paul got quagmired in the verses below:



Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Romans 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.

Romans 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?

Romans 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Romans 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?



What Paul resorted to was conclusions, devoid of intelligence, since it was impossible for him to understand the inconsistencies in the character of the Jewish god (Yahweh).[/b]

If anyone is intellectually honest, the day he/she understands the Bible, it's that day he will realize that bible informed behavior, is diametrically opposed to intelligent behavior.