Tamaratonye5:

I beg your pardon, what is it about "created’ you don’t understand?

Does this help? Definition of create

It’s not a complex idea. And yes, "created" does infer a creator.

This atheist is not able to believe the universe had a creator. All I can say with confidence is the universe exists. That it seems to have begun with the so-called big bang. I can’t prove that, either can anyone else as far as I'm aware.

To say therefore "god did it" is facile and shallow, in my opinion. Also a logical fallacy "god of the gaps".The fallacy finds its genesis in an argument from ignorance. IE : "I lack the knowledge, imagination and the wit to think of anything else, and my dogmatic certitude will not allow me to simply say I don’t know"

I guess you are really on a war path. Anyway, I actually wanted to get a sense of what you truly meant.

Well, the inflationary big bang model is the only workable model that accurately describes our universe and the space-time theorems do not allow for a universe that is infinite to the past. There's simply no workable theory that accurately describes our universe that bypasses the finitude of the universe to the past.

There are some ways of speculating though, ie The CCC.
And hmm No, the fact that the universe has a beginning and a creation event does not automatically say God. All it means is there's an agent beyond space-time that started the whole shabang. You could postulate that the fundamental laws are themselves that agent eternal. To say God or go any other way, would require putting other pieces on the table, but the BVG and the inflationary big bang model on their own do not tell us anything about the existence of God cos its outside of what they can describe. All they tell at face value is that "In the beginning was the beginning... and that beginning was in the finite past(not eternal). And here are the parameters under which it exist"... Anything outside of that requires a different set of lenses and conversation.
Again I actually just wanted to see what you were tracking but I guess your answer is "You don't know."

It's kinda rich though that you are so quick in accusing me of some fallacy when you were making like 1 or 2 fallacies of your own. Anyway,it's fine...

Modified

MuttleyLaff:
Out of creating a test suite with at least two test cases, the test data will be used to test and/or check the accuracy of the comment(s) in your post.

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
2/ Since you advanced that "And the players possess Certain Specific knowledge about the Event!" then what Certain Specific knowledge did Abraham possess about the Event centering around him asked to go sacrifice his only begotten son, Isaac?

Sorry I did not see this till now,

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
________________________________________________
One, Abram knew and Understood something about God for him to Pack Up and Relocate to Any Place the Lord would direct him to.

Which I thereafter supplied to be that, Abram was seeking God out and God answered him and thus having found Who he was looking for, he obeyed.

He still maintained that Knowledge and Understanding of God up to where God was testing him on how far and strong and long his knowledge of God was, which is why, He tested the reins of his heart as David would say, and as God would say, "to see what He would do!"

And the Specific knowledge is that Abraham Knew many things about God which includes that He knew specifically that God is Good, God is God and Mighty, He knew that God would not put him into trouble and that if God told him to go to a certain place, that that place would be Good, that God keeps His Word, among other Knowledges he thereafter possessed and took hold of.

This is my humble submission.

Tamaratonye5:
Are you always this nutty? If you're not trying to explain yourself to me, you're trying to explain another irrelevant thing to me.

You kicked against me typing "Must have gotten your goat for such negative outburst like this to roll out from you" If the observational remark really was irrelevant, you wouldn't has commented about it

Tamaratonye5:
Classic Equivocation Fallacy by the way. When are you going to learn? Keep your slime-ball tactics to the echo of the ever emptying pews of your favorite Sunday gathering hole.

You dont understand what "Equivocation Fallacy" and its not surprising, you abuse and misuse applying the expression

Tamaratonye5:
And yet, that is exactly what you have done. Without looking, without examining, without actually reading that messed up book of fakery contradiction and outright lies you have adopted faith as your only guide, and look were it has led you. You spend your time proving you have no idea what you are talking about on an online forum. It’s sad your life is that sad. Perhaps you can get some friends to pray for you, lol.

After this rant and rave, do you feel better. Smh

Tamaratonye5:
Your response is, yet again, a classic non sequitur.

It beautifully follows your "Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb." half thought through comment

Tamaratonye5:
You managed to post a non sequitur, about your non sequitur!

Saying "non sequitur" must be in season, or maybe you've just learnt the expression

Tamaratonye5:
Then again, life is funnier than any team of comedy writers can imagine.

Why go to a circus, when we have a clown and wannabe comic here

Tamaratonye5:
It is not certain what Origen believed in this matter. He mentioned the doubts of others on the authorship of 2 Peter, but he did not make an unequivocal judgement on it himself. Some independent commentators suggest he may not have had enough evidence to able to decide either way. He, at least, was honest.

You have much learning to do. His signature, is as good as him, directly authoring the letters

Tamaratonye5:
Nice evasion. Totally avoided any comment on the unpleasant claims I presented and disregarded my question yet again.

I already told you I won't waste good ammo on you

Tamaratonye5:
I think you share some of the less enviable traits with Paul.

I am unique, and I am vindicated, for earlier typing that Apostle Paul is a misunderstood man. You misunderstand Paul, his theology, his letters, his style of writing et cetera, hence you have gripes about him

Tamaratonye5:
Peter got passed over, along with the original teachings of Jesus, because he was a Jew. Paul sought every opportunity to criticise him because he was jealous of his position as the publicly acknowledged and real life Christ-appointed First Apostle. Paul was an argumentative self-centred psychopath who had nothing more than an unwitnessed conversion on a remote section of the Damascus road as his only credentials to apostleship. It was Barnabas’s misplace faith in him that got him some grudging acceptance with the real apostles. And even then the bonehead had a falling out with Barnabas not long after. He was a disputatious fanatic.

Prejudice, misunderstanding, ignorance, lies all rolled into one

Tamaratonye5:
It's evident in his actions and words if one could step back from the sanctimonious fanboy infatuation of him. Even the rest of the Jerusalem apostles tended to keep him at arms reach. Paul even prided himself that he didn’t really get to meet or even know most of them in happy joyous Christian fellowship.

Good on Paul. Wehdone Apostle Paul, sir

Tamaratonye5:
The eventual Jewish/Christian split was a violent event. It marked the beginning of overt Christian antisemitism. During the Jewish war with Rome, the Gentile Christians embraced the Pauline doctrine and predictably enough, sided with the Empire, who destroyed the Temple and after the Edict of Milan, militarised the Christian dominionist quest that furthered the persecution of the Jews and the other Greek and Roman religions and culture.

Tamaratonye5, fyi, from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding and/or attacking it

Tamaratonye5:
And still you failed to comprehend it well enough to see 2 Peter was obviously not going to provide an appropriate answer. Unbelievable.

2 Peter is self explanatory. If you know, you know. If you dont, means, you haven't in you to know

Tamaratonye5:
No, I do not trust you.

No love lost. I never you either

Tamaratonye5:
How magnanimously condescending of you. I expect they will be delighted to hear.

I give credit where earned and when due.

Tamaratonye5:
I've never made a secret of this. How observant of you, but, ok, finally! After how many posts? The penny drops. Fine-tooth combs indeed. I have more than reservations about Paul.

I instantly had a whiff gusto smell of you, a few good miles away. It smelled like a gust of wind from Satan's anus.

Tamaratonye5:
The unwelcomed psychopath subverted the original Christian doctrine of Jesus and his views on faith are dishonest ramblings of a guy who had a physical conversion, that is, he was convinced he actually met his god, who struck him blind. How does faith play a part in that? You can’t answer, which brings us to your next lie:

You sound bitter and twisted. You did you?

Tamaratonye5:
You never answered any question. I would still be waiting had I not dropped the request.

Scroll up to see, I made good effort, answering all your questions and quit acting dishonest

Tamaratonye5:
I don’t find anything remotely amusing about the number of unreasonable insults you've dealt me. It reveals a most dislikable aspect of your personality.

Stop being petty. If you go to a battleground, expect to be shot at now. I am sure if asked to produce the verbatim alleged insults, you won't come trumps up

Tamaratonye5:
And then this final Parthian shot, quibbling over the number of years, as if it carried any real significance. Pathetic. Naming dropping? Pertinent references to historical figures? It's not like I claim Origen as my personal best buddy forever. You're an idiot. This sad tawdry reply of yours only serves to illustrate what I had observed of you from the beginning; a penchant to avoid matters of substance and a despicable use of petty criticisms to cover your self-satisfied pious arse.

You see without me specifically giving the names you dropped so to impress, you knew who and how you dropped names

Tamaratonye5:
Thanks for your "feeble, shallow and blathering" reply, its a shining example of the old adage, "Fawning and fake humility are a lethal combination." I will be looking out for more inane posts from you in the future

You type like this whenever you prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath

Tamaratonye5:
Uh oh, wait a minute:
Why don't you transfer your god belief to unicorns, and garden fairies hmm?
Here - there's even books

Have you books of unicorn or garden fairies incarnate? Unicorn or garden fairies books, with plans of salvation redemption and reconciliation of souls with God, hmm?

Tamaratonye5:
Nope… not even close! Your existence is evidence of your parents having sexual intercourse.

Take it back to the first human being nah

Tamaratonye5:
Trace the line back …and wow! an evolutionary line.

Why not be specific about the evolutionary line nah.

Tamaratonye5:
Cool, I did not know you believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Smh, now here is where, saying "non sequitur" is justified to say.

Tamaratonye5:
The human eye is fragile and poorly designed. There’s a blind spot right in the middle, and we have to waste brain power rectifying inverted images. The eye itself is an extremely fragile mess of jelly and is vulnerable to damage from dust, impacts, and even excessively strong light. Have you heard the expression "blind as bat"? Well bats have better vision than us, especially in low-light conditions.

No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection. It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god.

The cheek, when you show me an example of an eye lash you have designed and created, then you have to right to criticise someone else design

Tamaratonye5:
Plus, MuttleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

One word Tamaratonye5, Specification. This is a clear case of requirement specification.

Tamaratonye5:
Of course, all of this makes a sham of the claim we were designed in the image of a god.

"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness,
to rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock,
and over all the earth itself and every creature that crawls upon it.
²⁷So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them"
- Genesis 1:26-27

I like red, the colour exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera me. We, human beings are the image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created human beings to physically project different aspect, images and likeness of the Godhead

Image is instant, likeness is continuum and the latter is evident in Genesis 1:27, as seen above. It is unfortunate that, ever since God took the adventure to create man in His image and likeness, man retrospectively has had the desire to want to return the favour and wilfully contravene The Second Commandment, by creating God in his image, according to an atypical representation, formulation, theory, perverted idea et cetera or even the classic Tamaratonye5 misrepresentation of God

Dtruthspeaker:
Sorry I did not see this till now,

1/ Since, in your humble opinion, all the examples of faith recorded in the Bible are based on knowledge, please explain how Abraham faith(s) was/were based on knowledge
________________________________________________
One, Abram knew and Understood something about God for him to Pack Up and Relocate to Any Place the Lord would direct him to.

Which I thereafter supplied to be that, Abram was seeking God out and God answered him and thus having found Who he was looking for, he obeyed.

He still maintained that Knowledge and Understanding of God up to where God was testing him on how far and strong and long his knowledge of God was, which is why, He tested the reins of his heart as David would say, and as God would say, "to see what He would do!"

And the Specific knowledge is that Abraham Knew many things about God which includes that He knew specifically that God is Good, God is God and Mighty, He knew that God would not put him into trouble and that if God told him to go to a certain place, that that place would be Good, that God keeps His Word, among other Knowledges he thereafter possessed and took hold of.

This is my humble submission.

Extremely right on the money apt responses. I just wanted you to spell out your submission. Thank you very much

MuttleyLaff:
Extremely right on the money apt responses. I just wanted you to spell out your submission. Thank you very much

I appreciate it

sonmvayina:
It is just a fancy word for ignorance...

When it comes to Religion though.


My understanding of faith is that it applies to something that actually works, not the unknown.

Tamaratonye5:


The human eye is fragile and poorly designed. There’s a blind spot right in the middle, and we have to waste brain power rectifying inverted images. The eye itself is an extremely fragile mess of jelly and is vulnerable to damage from dust, impacts, and even excessively strong light. Have you heard the expression "blind as bat"? Well bats have better vision than us, especially in low-light conditions.

No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection. It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god.

Plus, MuttleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

Of course, all of this makes a sham of the claim we were designed in the image of a god.

The question I have for you is this:
Why is there a human eye in the first place?
Why did it evolve to function the way it does?

You even admitted that other animals have better eyes than us, fine. However, we as humans generally have better brains than those animals, so couldn't it be that there is a creator who wasn't interested in giving an all perfect design ( probably in order to create a sort of balance) but a creator nonetheless?

If evolution is a disorganised or random process, why is it so self directed? it seems to me to be pre programmed.

I think what we should be concerned about, is not whether or not a creator exist ( because a creator most likely exists) but rather who this creator is and why the creator exists in the first place.

Why is there something rather than absolute nothing?

IamMichael:

When it comes to Religion though.


My understanding of faith is that it applies to something that actually works, not the unknown.

You have a point here.. But the Catholic definition is that faith is a super natural gift from God that enables you to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed... I still know my catechism...

Tamaratonye5:
I am an atheist because theists and religious apologist can't demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity. Also the arguments presented are often irrational and flawed.

No thanks, Tamaraton Tantrum, we'll pass your blame back, fully intact. Try taking responsibility for your decisions. None but you will be held responsible. You've got just as much brain and stuff as others, so do yourself a favor and stop waiting for another to do you.
It's one thing to have no faith, it's another to be an atheist. Sorcerers and demons believe in creator but got no faith. In the physical plane though, atheists make completely irrational, tending even to dumb claims, whelmed in denial despite logic screaming out loud on the rooftops, pointing to an intelligent designer, beginning from your body and soul, proceeding to the intergalactic systems and all apart from scientific evidences like the space-time models and all natural laws e.g. energy conservation.
Also, logic presents the conduct required of us by simply observing laws of nature and the consequences of going against them. If you wanna go down the logic route to prove creator's existence of and determine his ways, you can engage me on my thread where I prove the illogicality of atheism (https://www.nairaland.com/5985904/technology-one-greate). However, though logic points to a creator and even his ways, faith is the only substance which pacifies (without your ignoring) creator's personal gauge/meter, your pricking conscience, which seeing not, you cannot deny it's existence therefore faith is what connects you personally to him for relationship. Faith is also the only source point from which you can satisfy creator's laws of conduct to your fellows and himself, mirrored in the laws of nature E.g. "Do to others as you would have done to you" reflected in "action and reaction are equal and opposite". So even after logic establishes creator's existence, you must seek faith which comes from himself alone to have hope of eternal security and peace with him.

Tamaratonye5:
Actually - faith is already defined by the bible in Hebrews 11:1"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Why wouldn’t I have confidence in the Law of Gravity?

Heb 11:1-2 ...and faith is the substratum of what is expected, the object of proof, not seen because in it the elders became witnesses.
The essence of faith here is many long strides from where you roll. As you may know, the atom is the indivisible unit of matter which retains all peculiar qualities of it and yet this atom is not seen naturally, only substances as embodiment of atoms are seen. What nature is tryna teach you about creator is right under your nose. As your natural senses cannot perceive atoms, learn that the things that hold the world together and are responsible for it are beyond your senses (Hebrews 11:3). Like the atom, faith's unseen, but as seeing matter leads to the conclusion that there's an atom, so the superhuman feat of unwavering expectation of peace with God leads to the conclusion that faith is in a man. The atom is to matter what faith is to this the hope of peace with god.
Until you actually try convincing yourself of such hope, you'll be yet to see that you can tell your mind anything you wish, you can even numb your conscience by warped reasoning but you cannot create this unwavering hope without the building block of faith which you must go humbly to receive from creator himself. Of course, any can claim this unwavering hope but such claims can be easily validated when face to face with death.

Tamaratonye5:
All of that is for the choir. I realise now my audience of 40 years ago with no sense of guilt or fear or need of redemptions, would have needed a Damascene event, in reality, of their own, to establish a faith and belief in a god. Just like Paul. Why is it they dont get one and are doomed to eternal punishment? Right, logical. Its ironic that Christians now quote him in the defence of the lofty merits of blind faith and supposedly logical belief.

Nothing ironic to reference Paul for faith. Granted, a unique experience came along Paul's reception of faith, other unique experience will come alongside for everyone else but the litmus test for the presence of faith is always the reality of unwavering hope and faith's animated and organic transformations on men's personalities. In case you didn't know, there's some special in store for those who receive faith without these epiphanies (John 20:26-29)
Btw, what do you mean by Jesus rather than YHWH, you think they're different? and elsewhere you call the bible a book of contradictions. If you're ignorant of divine matters, why not just let them be? There's no possibility nor logicality of creator or his ways contradicting if he is god indeed.

Tamaratonye5:
Peter got passed over, along with the original teachings of Jesus, because he was a Jew

In your theology, of course. This is absurd. Where do you even get these ideas? But then again, what to expect of those who try to build spiritual stuff without the substratum, faith.

Tamaratonye5:
Paul sought every opportunity to criticise him because he was jealous of his position as the publicly acknowledged and real life Christ-appointed First Apostle.

You know if one's got much animosity and self-conceit in them, they'd see others actions through that (Titus 1:15). For those who know, Paul and Peter loved each other more than words can describe and deeper than what best friends share but well, what would you know about their love without the faith binding them?

Tamaratonye5:
Paul was an argumentative self-centred psychopath who had nothing more than an unwitnessed conversion on a remote section of the Damascus road as his only credentials to apostleship. It was Barnabas’s misplace faith in him that got himsome grudging acceptance with the real apostles. And even then the bonehead had a falling out with Barnabas not long after. He was a disputatious fanatic.

No wonder you're scared to believe there's a creator. If there were, how would his judgement of you not be as damning as yours is of others, without any grounds either. Paul as much as you seem to hate him said something educative (Titus 1:15)

Tamaratonye5:
The unwelcomed psychopath subverted the original Christian doctrine of Jesus and his views on faith are dishonest ramblings of a guy who had a physical conversion, that is, he was convinced he actually met his god, who struck him blind. How does faith play a part in that?

Just asking, do you have any foe by the name Paul or Saul? Take it out on them then. The bible Paul subverted nothing, else show it. You don't have the building block, faith, but think you can poke your nose into matters require faith to grasp. Sorcerers have more spiritual experiences than Paul but none comes to the unwavering hope of peace with creator in their conscience. If Paul had this Damascus experience and didn't get faith itself, he would still be damned and worse off than one who got faith otherwise.

Tamaratonye5:
No designer would be satisfied with the many defects and compromises in the human eye. It’s exactly what you’d expect to emerge from chance mutations combined with natural selection.

And yet we design robots and continually upgrade their models for limitations. That must mean robots are not intelligently designed but a product of chance. Atheistic silliness at it again! In design, there's a difference between limitations and absence of intelligence. Plus did you ever learn of the "fall" when you were "reading" the bible? Go figure!
Yeah also, does natural selection follow an intelligent principle in your evolutionary theory or is it just haphazard chanced mutations?
One way or another, your answer will contradict your belief in "accidental existence"

Tamaratonye5:
It's evidence of the non-existence of a creator god. Plus, Mut/tleyLaff, let us not forget that other animals have superior eyes. The mantis shrimp eyes have many superior characteristics. Some raptor birds function like telescopes. Cats can see where to us humans it is pitch black. Chameleons can rotate their eyes.

Sorry to burst your bubble but you are no image of god, you would have to begin from faith and work your way into such image. Despite the fall and consequent defects, all creatures show the creator expresses a billion ideas but remains one person in his essence/substratum, each design uniquely intelligent and suited to a specific purpose. There's more proof of the intelligent designer in your little rant up there than in many volumes of scientific papers. Way to go!
Plus yeah, evolution died as another illogical idea in the mind, with many other and when the scientific community discovered the universality of the genetic code across multifarious existence, that just somehow doesn't evolve.
Have you also studied the complexity of the genetic code and the degree of intelligence embodied by it. Pray tell, if there's still rationality in you, how does that not make you throw out the idea of anticreationism?

IamMichael:
My understanding of faith is that it applies to something that actually works, not the unknown.

You are much closer to understanding faith than Tamaraton Tantrum. If you don't lose this, you might end up finding the precious treasure called faith. Faith ain't no blind belief, it's unseen with natural eyes like an atom but realised in its external body of the hope of peace with God. The man whose got it, sees it and perceives it hence cannot deny it's existence as well as you perceive the screen in your head, called mind yet can't see it or even it's imaginations. Faith is alive and active in itself hence unlike your imaginations which need your actions, faith influences reality by itself including your actions.
Like I told Tantrum, none would believe the impossibility of convincing oneself of the hope of peace with god except they tried. Faith is the only substratum of this very hope, given freely by god, at his own expense, to men who will humbly seek.

sonmvayina:


You have a point here.. But the Catholic definition is that faith is a super natural gift from God that enables you to believe without doubting whatever God has revealed... I still know my catechism...

The one they still teach children in school to brainwash them in CRS.

IamMichael:



The one they still teach children in school to brainwash them in CRS.

Catholic doctrines... Lol

IamMichael:



The one they still teach children in school to brainwash them in CRS.

What baffles me is your use of this word "brainwash".

You were born, breastfed, schooled, grew up, got a job, marry, have children, train them, grow old, die and buried one day just like everyone else, so what makes you think you're not brainwashed to join the same routine just like everyone else does?

Maximus69:


What baffles me is your use of this word "brainwash".

You were born, breastfed, schooled, grew up, got a job, marry, have children, train them, grow old, die and buried one day just like everyone else, so what makes you think you're not brainwashed to join the same routine just like everyone else does?

I used to be like you, defending the Catholic Church and what not. Ever seen a core Roman Catholic person before? You are looking at him write.

Therefore, i know brainwashing when i see one. And CRS is full-time BW, just like every other Religious Doctrine out there!

sonmvayina:


Catholic doctrines... Lol

Exactly...

IamMichael:

I used to be like you, defending the Catholic Church and what not. Ever seen a core Roman Catholic person before? You are looking at him write.

Therefore, i know brainwashing when i see one. And CRS is full-time BW, just like every other Religious Doctrine out there!

Well i think brainwashing connotes disability to think of something benefitial while others are progressing. I don't see of anything noteworthy that Catholics are missing which atheists are gaining!

Maximus69:


Well i think brainwashing connotes disability to think of something benefitial while others are progressing. I don't see of anything noteworthy that Catholics are missing which atheists are gaining!

Check the meaning of brainwashing!

RE: PAUL OF TARSUS

MuttleyLaff:
You kicked against me typing "Must have gotten your goat for such negative outburst like this to roll out from you" If the observational remark really was irrelevant, you wouldn't has commented about it

Ok, lol.

MuttleyLaff:
You dont understand what "Equivocation Fallacy" and its not surprising, you abuse and misuse applying the expression

I know breaking it down in pieces to spoon-feed you will be a thankless effort given your apparent obstinacy and dogmatic idiocy, as well as your penchant for dishonestly twisting basic concepts, but I'll give it a shot anyway for the sake of viewers. This part of the conversation has been dragged unnecessarily long enough already

Faith: (your usage)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
(Synonyms would be trust, confidence, hope, conviction.)

The problem is in the theists definition:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "rather than proof", faith itself is the evidence according to scripture.

Hebrews 11:1
"11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…"

"3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

In Theism: FAITH is the proof. It has nothing at all to do with your usage of the word.

MuttleyLaff:
After this rant and rave, do you feel better. Smh

It's just an observation, with a suggestion in tow. No apologies there at all.

MuttleyLaff:
It beautifully follows your "Only a dumbass would not look before stepping off the curb." half thought through comment

No, it doesn't

MuttleyLaff:
Saying "non sequitur" must be in season, or maybe you've just learnt the expression

You're trying too hard

MuttleyLaff:
Why go to a circus, when we have a clown and wannabe comic here

I was making an observation, not necessarily directed at anyone. But since you took offense, please see your doctor concerning your mental state.

MuttleyLaff:
You have much learning to do. His signature, is as good as him, directly authoring the letters

You have no critical Bible exegesist study experience. Your signature is ignorance.

MuttleyLaff:
I already told you I won't waste good ammo on you

You have no ammo good or otherwise.

MuttleyLaff:
I am unique, and I am vindicated, for earlier typing that Apostle Paul is a misunderstood man. You misunderstand Paul, his theology, his letters, his style of writing et cetera, hence you have gripes about him

You are unique alright, you repeat "misunderstood" like a parrot. I seek to know why he is misunderstood.

MuttleyLaff:
Prejudice, misunderstanding, ignorance, lies all rolled into one

History is nasty. It cares nothing for your ignorant judgements. Neither do I.

MuttleyLaff:
Good on Paul. Wehdone Apostle Paul, sir

Distinct antisemitism there, Muslim prejudice?

MuttleyLaff:
Tamaratonye.5, fyi, from the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding and/or attacking it

Agreed, history is a bitch, I love to know about it; we disregard it at our own peril.

MuttleyLaff:
2 Peter is self explanatory. If you know, you know. If you dont, means, you haven't in you to know

Not explanatory enough for you evidently.

MuttleyLaff:
No love lost. I never you either

This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, lol

MuttleyLaff:
I give credit where earned and when due.

You don’t have the expertise to be dispensing credit.

MuttleyLaff:

I instantly had a whiff gusto smell of you, a few good miles away. It smelled like a gust of wind from Satan's anus

He who smells it first…?

MuttleyLaff:
You sound bitter and twisted. You did you?

Bitter? Presumptuous of you to say. I’m calling what I see. You have no answer. See above. You have no ammo.

MuttleyLaff:
Scroll up to see, I made good effort, answering all your questions and quit acting dishonest

The questions remain unanswered despite your "good" effort, I mean that honestly.

MuttleyLaff:
Stop being petty. If you go to a battleground, expect to be shot at now. I am sure if asked to produce the verbatim alleged insults, you won't come trumps up

Denying the obvious, which anyone here with the slightest degree of honesty and/or objectivity, have witnessed of you, is really a form of admission. Fine. Gloves off.

MuttleyLaff:
You see without me specifically giving the names you dropped so to impress, you knew who and how you dropped names

You've name-dropped god, of all people, in my conversation with another. I was not impressed.

MuttleyLaff:
You type like this whenever you prematurely seem to be running out steam and/or breath

I type like this when I am convinced further discussions will profit no-one. I have other things to learn. See you on the other end of this argument.

FINIS.

RE: EXISTENCE OF GOD/S

MuttleyLaff:
Have you books of unicorn or garden fairies incarnate? Unicorn or garden fairies books, with plans of salvation redemption and reconciliation of souls with God, hmm?

Do the Harry Potter books validate wizards and wizardry? No book, including the bible, can validate it’s own claims, only objective evidence can do this.

MuttleyLaff:
Take it back to the first human being nah

The first humans evolved just two hundred thousand years ago, evolution is billions of years old. However this is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you're using, a god of the gaps polemic. Even without evolution, creationism us not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and your assertions suggest you don't even understand what the phrase means.

MuttleyLaff:
The cheek, when you show me an example of an eye lash you have designed and created, then you have to right to criticise someone else design

You have entirely missed the point, that theists assert evolved traits as part of a perfect design by an infallible deity, are demonstrably false. As the examples offered showed. That's what objective evidence looks like btw.

MuttleyLaff:
"²⁶Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness

And we know this isn't true, because humans evolved, this is a scientific fact, supported by [b]all the objective evidence.

MuttleyLaff:
I like red, the colour exudes an air of love, romance, boldness, courage, danger etcetera me. We, human beings are the image representation of different attributes of God. God is incorporeal, but created human beings to physically project different aspect, images and likeness of the Godhead

Your interpretation of “red” are all human personality traits and qualities projected on to a simple wave length…

Oh my, Oh my, Oh my!!! Lookie here - demonstrable evidence of "red"…

Something a theist isn't able to provide for their invisible sky daddy of choice…

MuttleyLaff:
the classic Tamaratonye.5 misrepresentation of God

I, as most atheists, can't have a definition of any deity, that’s axiomatic. I, as most atheists, only debate the deities theists imagine are real, and of course there are limitless deities and versions, which you disbelieve are real, but can offer no objective difference from the one you choose to believe is real.

I disbelieve any of them are real, and for the same reason, that there is no objective evidence for the claim, no more or less for Zeus or Apollo, than for Jesus or Vishnu.

jamesid29:

I guess you are really on a war path. Anyway, I actually wanted to get a sense of what you truly meant.

I don't mean anything by it, as I never did say the universe wasn't created. Your question was disingenuous.

jamesid29:
It's kinda rich though that you are so quick in accusing me of some fallacy when you were making like 1 or 2 fallacies of your own. Anyway,it's fine...

Really? Obviously I wasn't aware, or I would not have made such mistakes. One of my reasons for spending time here is to learn. I would appreciate it if you would point out the fallacies I made.

Warpath? Me? Nah, I'm not even warmed up. I don't suffer fools. Based on experience, virtually all of the apologists I've met on Nairaland are pretty foolish, or if you prefer, willfully pig ignorant, arrogant, patronisng and intellectually dishonest.

Dtruthspeaker:
what is your measurement and standard of Proof of Truth?

Tamaratonye5:
Well I might ask the same of you, since it is your belief, but let's start here…

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?

Dtruthspeaker:
Andl Your first answer is a fallacious, the Reversal fallacy, Shifting the burden, may be Tu Quoque.

That's risible nonsense. I think you mean an inverse fallacy as well. Fallacies that appeal to ignorance to reverse the burden of proof though are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, which is what your question was of course, an appeal to ignorance fallacy, to reverse your burden of proof for your belief, and move it onto those who don’t share that belief. It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours. I'm also getting a sense you're trolling now.

Mister man, as per the quotes above, you're going to have to join the dots for me. You asked why I didn't believe in a deity. I answered because there is no objective evidence, then asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for your god claim. You then used irrational sophistry to obfuscate, and avoid answering, instead demanding someone who don’t believe give a pro tem definition of what she will accept as evidence, which is absurdly irrational and dishonest. I politely pointed out that since it's your claim a deity exists, it is for you to define and demonstrate what evidence you have. Bizarrely and equally dishonestly, you tried to label this irrational?

Of course you have already failed to offer any objective evidence, and it was clear to me, as I have seen such sophistry many times on here, that you were asking a loaded and irrational question so you could circle back to it and pretend the blame for you failing to demonstrate any objective evidence was somehow the fault of atheists who set an unacceptable standard.

[1] I shan't waste any time defining objective evidence, as it is a self defining phrase.

[2] I set the same standard for all claims, not just your god claim, so there is demonstrably no bias on my part.

[3] You are undoubtedly heading for a special pleading fallacy, that asserts your god claim be ring fenced from this standard, I've seen it many times before.

[4] Number 3 illustrates fairly obvious bias on your part, and not on the part of the atheist here.

[5] If you discard the need for objective evidence to support claims, what then is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

[6] What justification can you offer for making an irrational exception for your god claim, and deciding it need not be supported by objective evidence?

[7] What rational justification can you offer for cherry picking which scientific facts to believe, based on whether they contradict your religion's archaic creation myths or not?

[8] Since you've indulged in sophistry regarding the burden of proof so early in the debate, what evidence would you accept that invisible garden fairies, undetectable in any empirical way, are real?

Daejoyoung:
The question I have for you is this:
Why is there a human eye in the first place?
Why did it evolve to function the way it does?

Why is that a question for atheists specifically? It surely is more aptly aimed at evolutionary biologists.

Here is link to the talk origins website, as well as answering all your questions on evolution, it has a list of creationist propaganda claims that most creationists don't see aware that science has debunked

Daejoyoung:
couldn't it be that there is a creator...?

I don't know, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for one? I'm pretty much an old hag now, and no theists has been able to demonstrate any thus far.

Daejoyoung:
If evolution is a disorganised or random process, why is it so self directed? it seems to me to be pre programmed.

Odd that the entire global scientific community think the opposite, evolution effectively ended Darwin’s christian beliefs. Much to the chagrin of his very christian wife.

FYI, Evolution is the way you describe it because it is randomness that is filtered. Not unlike a drunkard's walk.

Daejoyoung:
I think what we should be concerned about, is not whether or not a creator exist ( because a creator most likely exists) but rather who this creator is and why the creator exists in the first place.

I disagree, as worrying about what type of non existent creator exists seems pretty pointless to me, so you're putting your cart well in front of your horse.

Daejoyoung:
Why is there something rather than absolute nothing?

How do you know nothing is even possible? Until you do the question seems so loaded as to make it rather facile. Either way I don't see how this remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural.

Do you know what an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is? You seem to be basing your reasoning on this quite a bit in that post.

Let's pretend that evolution is completely wrong. 100% wrong. In fact, all of science is wrong [medicine, physics, astronomy, psychology, philosophy], and every other branch of science you can imagine. Every single branch is wrong… How does that prove the existence of your god? You do not win by default. Ignorance pays nobody. You either offer evidence for the existence of your god or you tuck your tail between your legs and run away like the loser you are trying not to be.

DrLiveLogic:
Tamaraton Tantrum

That actually rhymes, lol

DrLiveLogic:
so do yourself a favor and stop waiting for another to do you.

That sounds hot . Are you suggesting a romantic interlude for one, hmmmm?***

DrLiveLogic:
Plus yeah, evolution died as another illogical idea in the mind, with many other and when the scientific community discovered the universality of the genetic code across multifarious existence, that just somehow doesn’t evolve.

Oh yeah, the obligatory stab at the theory of evolution; firmly establishing yourself as a crackpot, lol.

The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

DrLiveLogic:
Faith is also the only source point from which you can satisfy god’s behavioural laws which are also mirrored in the laws of nature E.g. “Do to others as you would have done to you” reflected in “action and reaction are equal and opposite”

That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Your rhetoric is painfully and obviously nonsensical here as it is elsewhere.

I use a term of reference that is not determined by a "god". Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral?

In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.

DrLiveLogic:
And sorry to burst your bubbles but you are no image of god,

My bubble isn't bursted. In fact, this is a compliment of the highest order. Thanks a lot.

Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one. [MuttleyLaff]

DrLiveLogic:
In the physical plane though, atheists make completely irrational, tending even to dumb claims,

Oh I think your post has pulled that rug from under every atheist viewing this thread.

DrLiveLogic:
pointing to an intelligent designer, beginning from your body and soul proceeding to the intergalactic systems and all apart from scientific evidences like the space-time models and all natural laws e.g. energy conservation.

Not one word of that is objective evidence, it’s just vapid rhetoric.

DrLiveLogic:
Further, logic shows what is expected of us by simply observing the laws of the nature and the consequences of going against them.

Logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation. You’re making up errant nonsense, and simply tacking the word logic to it, and you clearly haven’t even the most basic grasp of what logic is. Let alone understand it’s methods, including recognising and avoiding known logical fallacies, like the argument from assertion fallacy you seem determined to use to death in your posts

DrLiveLogic:
However logic can only go that far and ends where faith begins.

Again you should start by actually looking up the definition of logic, as you’re embarrassing yourself, and faith is utterly useless in validating claims or beliefs, as there is quite literally nothing one could not believe using faith. As I keep asking, if you believe something without any objective evidence, or based on faith alone in other words, then what is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

DrLiveLogic:

Logic establishes the existence of creator

I don’t believe you, pleased demonstrate objective evidence for your claim.

DrLiveLogic:
Have you also studied the complexity of the genetic code and the degree of intelligence embodied by it. Pray tell, if there’s still rationality in you, how does that not make you throw out the idea of anticreationism?

Scroll up to see response from world leader in the field of genetics. There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion. Creationism is naught but unevidenced superstitious guff, there is nothing to throw out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, about Paul:

"Faith in gods" can enter your life in many ways. It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder, or you embrace it later in life through some epiphany brought on by intense existential turmoil or some desperate circumstance. Once gained it is hard to dismiss. But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall from your eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs, its veritably impossible to return to them. Once you see the old woman in the puzzle picture you can't stop seeing her over the young woman.

YHWH, Jesus, Holy Spirit. It depends if you are a Trinitarian, Unitarian or some merge of the two. For all I know there are still Manichaeists, Docetists, Arianists out there. My brother in law identifies as a Catharist. I try to be politely inclusive, despite my own disbelief.

You already know about the claims made about the contradictions in the Bible. They have been around for centuries. I find many to be the outcome of translations, editings, redactions etcetera etcetera. Contradictions aren't necessarily indications of deceit, just error.

The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible, from contradictions to glaring editorial conflicts. I would expect such for a publication with a such a long and confused history. I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice. Though I am no longer in thrall of the supposed universal truths claimed to be in it, I still find the Bible fascinating on many levels. I recognise there are certain passages that contain good advice and considered evident wisdom, so too does the Analects of Confucius and even the Quoran and other religious tomes. But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

The next verse, Titus 1 16, begins "They profess that they know God". Titus is talking about hypocrites. Yes I am an atheist, but the purity Titus talks of is the purity of faith and belief. I profess none of that. Any other inference is just an intolerant pious insult.

You want me to persecute someone on the basis of their name?

I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast. If the two resolved their differences I am inclined to think it would mostly be due to concessions Peter made, as per 2 Peter where he encourages the reading of Paul’s epistles with a passing note on their difficult content. I note Paul makes no mention of Peter in 2 Timothy. That they both were in Rome when they were executed, there is no record I am aware of that suggests they "preached together" as is claimed on some theist site. I admit to no religious faith but that sort of faith is not a reliable tool for reaching the truth, it only propagates determination not to be swayed from the dogmatic concept of "absolute truth".

My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ. Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws. On the face of it Paul's writings only served the purposes of making Jesus's teaching more attractive for the squirmish tastes of Gentile men ("Cut off the end of their what??!!) and Gentile gourmets (but I love oysters!), so how are these concessions are compatible with the god of Abraham and consistent with a imperative belief in him? It just seems like one of the greatest marketing ploys of all time and one of the most successful cons ever. Frankly I think the Essenes, who still exist, are probably a closer fit to what might have been the original teachings of Jesus.

I don't care to comment on whether Paul was damned or not, I've certainly never said I hated him as you suggest. I have describe him a pyschopath (a non judgemental psychological condition, like depression), a sufferer of TLEs (temporal lobe epilepsy, another medical condition), a liar (arent we all? see the plank in my eye?) a manipulator (passive aggressive or just aggressive or both?) and an narcissist (I have dealt with several diagnosed as such, the bona fide ones reject the notion that they are). There’s not much reason there for me to hate him; he hasn’t subverted any faith of mine. I have friends that display these traits, but they've had hard lives and I cut them slack. I see Paul more of a human victim, as much as I see Judas a victim. None the less I maintain Judas betrayed Jesus and Paul subverted his message and for this Christians resent me.

I really do have a friend named Atilla. He's six foot five and an exceptionally kind human being. I feel no need to take anything out on him. He is no Hun





***Maybe I did learn some from MuttleyLaff after all. "hmmmm?.. sounds really sexy lmao

[quote author=Tamaratonye5 post=92005735]

Why is that a question for atheists specifically? It surely is more aptly aimed at evolutionary biologists.

No the question is for atheists specifically, because I am not arguing against evolution, I'm arguing against the interpretation of evolution by atheists. Many religious people accept evolution too.

Here is link to the talk origins website, as well as answering all your questions on evolution, it has a list of creationist propaganda claims that most creationists don't see aware that science has debunked

Am I a creationist? I am only asking you the why behind evolution, and how it relates to the God question, not the truth or falsehood of evolution.

I don't know, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for one? I'm pretty much an old hag now, and no theists has been able to demonstrate any thus far.

This question have been answered so many times, but you don't wanna deal with it, you keep asking it. The logical evidence is the existence of the world that we live in, and the fact that we exist, it is more logical to conclude that something or an intelligence made my hand evolve to be this way, so I can use it the way I currently use it.
So when you say objective evidence, is it objective evidence from a lab result or a scientific law? if so, then not everything we know today comes from such kind of evidence.

Again, I know that my father is my father, even though I do not look so much like him physically, but I have faith that my mother was faithful, I do not need a DNA test report.
Then you ask me, what objective evidence do you have to claim that your father is your father even without a DNA test, and you keep saying you haven't found one yet, but then until you define what type of objective evidence you are talking about, it becomes meaningless.
Is objective evidence a DNA test? I don't need one, my logic tells me that if I exist, and I have been living with my mum and so called father, and they took care of me till this time, it is more logical to accept the thesis that this is indeed my father.
I may be wrong, but it would be more foolish for me to insist on a DNA test before believing that he is my father. The more logical default for now before the DNA test, is that I am the son of my so called father.
Not every form of knowledge comes from a kind of lab or test report, not even in science.
What you should be asking is: What logical evidence do you have for the existence of a God? then I present the logical evidence and we discuss the foolishness or merit thereof.

FYI, Evolution is the way you describe it because it is randomness that is filtered. Not unlike a drunkard's walk.

Randomness that is filtered cannot be so precise. It is more logical to assume that nature has been pre programmed from the big bang. Randomness that is filtered can give algorithms like a drunkards' walk, but it's still a stretch of faith to conclude that this algorithm produced humans and the world, with life on earth, and made the earth livable bringing in all necessary conditions and stuff like that. The algorithm seem to know that we would need copper and iron someday, and it produced all of these in time billions of years ago after the big bang. The algorithm produced living things from a material earth all by itself just like that without a program using it? I am not arguing against the existence of the algorithm, but I am saying even if it exist, it is been applied via programming, this is why it could give birth to life on earth( the only planet with evidence of life so far).
The fact that there are these algorithms or programming laws that could lead to humans like you and I, and a spinning earth like this with all the perfect minute conditions for life, brings the theists to the logical conclusion that there is an intelligence in nature or a program at work. I am simply saying that this intelligence and life force was infused from the big bang.
If you argue otherwise, then would you admit that your conclusion is also a leap of faith? then show me why yours is more reasonable than mine.
Remember, we are not discussing the truth of evolution, but our interpretation of this truth. We use logic to interpret the evidence before us. Even in archeology, after the physical evidence, we put 1 and 2 together most times to arrive at a reasonable conclusion, while there may be other interpretations to the physical evidence.

How do you know nothing is even possible? Until you do the question seems so loaded as to make it rather facile. Either way I don't see how this remotely evidences any deity, or anything supernatural.

Well before the big bang, there was no universe. Also before you were born, you didn't exist I guess. So we know that nothing means non existent.

Let's pretend that evolution is completely wrong. 100% wrong. In fact, all of science is wrong [medicine, physics, astronomy, psychology, philosophy], and every other branch of science you can imagine. Every single branch is wrong… How does that prove the existence of your god? [b]You do not win by default. Ignorance pays

Well if science is wrong on evolution, the default assumption ( as it had been before evolution theory) would continue to be that god or gods created the world, so a higher intelligence created the world and us.

You either offer evidence for the existence of your god or you tuck your tail between your legs and run away like the loser you are trying not to be.

I believe I have discussed the issue of evidence above.

I doff my hat for you ma .



Lol. U have serious determination and d patience of a saint. U're extremely bright as well...Been reading this thread 4rm the first page.

I'm surprised how you managed to keep up with more than 5 different people in arguments. If na me I for don lose vibe

Anyways Sha, hope I'm not intruding in your conversation but I just wanted to know your opinion on anecdotal(subjective) evidence for gods.


What's your opinion on their falsifiability? Or how can you disprove personal experience?

Tamaratonye5:

I don't mean anything by it, as I never did say the universe wasn't created. Your question was disingenuous.


Really? Obviously I wasn't aware, or I would not have made such mistakes. One of my reasons for spending time here is to learn. I would appreciate it if you would point out the fallacies I made.

Warpath? Me? Nah, I'm not even warmed up. I don't suffer fools. Based on experience, virtually all of the apologists I've met on Nairaland are pretty foolish, or if you prefer, willfully pig ignorant, arrogant, patronisng and intellectually dishonest.

Tamaratonye5:


That's risible nonsense. I think you mean an inverse fallacy as well. Fallacies that appeal to ignorance to reverse the burden of proof though are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, which is what your question was of course, an appeal to ignorance fallacy, to reverse your burden of proof for your belief, and move it onto those who don’t share that belief. It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours. I'm also getting a sense you're trolling now.

Mister man, as per the quotes above, you're going to have to join the dots for me. You asked why I didn't believe in a deity. I answered because there is no objective evidence, then asked you what objective evidence you could demonstrate for your god claim. You then used irrational sophistry to obfuscate, and avoid answering, instead demanding someone who don’t believe give a pro tem definition of what she will accept as evidence, which is absurdly irrational and dishonest. I politely pointed out that since it's your claim a deity exists, it is for you to define and demonstrate what evidence you have. Bizarrely and equally dishonestly, you tried to label this irrational?

Of course you have already failed to offer any objective evidence, and it was clear to me, as I have seen such sophistry many times on here, that you were asking a loaded and irrational question so you could circle back to it and pretend the blame for you failing to demonstrate any objective evidence was somehow the fault of atheists who set an unacceptable standard.

[1] I shan't waste any time defining objective evidence, as it is a self defining phrase.

[2] I set the same standard for all claims, not just your god claim, so there is demonstrably no bias on my part.

[3] You are undoubtedly heading for a special pleading fallacy, that asserts your god claim be ring fenced from this standard, I've seen it many times before.

[4] Number 3 illustrates fairly obvious bias on your part, and not on the part of the atheist here.

[5] If you discard the need for objective evidence to support claims, what then is your criteria for disbelieving anything?

[6] What justification can you offer for making an irrational exception for your god claim, and deciding it need not be supported by objective evidence?

[7] What rational justification can you offer for cherry picking which scientific facts to believe, based on whether they contradict your religion's archaic creation myths or not?

[8] Since you've indulged in sophistry regarding the burden of proof so early in the debate, what evidence would you accept that invisible garden fairies, undetectable in any empirical way, are real?

Any statement spoken in truth to bring about a change, even though adverse is not a Troll (now you go fight dis one)

"It's your belief, so the burden of proof is logically and epistemologically entirely yours"

And I very clearly answered that I was going to respond to and discharge the burden BUT how are we going to know that my burden has been Rightly Discharged and shifted to you, if We Do Not Have A Standard for Determining when we can both agree that the burden has passed. (U go still fight dis one too, infact I know say you go fight d whole thing I don talk as Miranda say "every word or statement you make shall be used against you" whether properly or not)

Especially as Atheist such as yourself are known to Always Change their Argument and Position, Lie and Breach every Standard of Reasonable Healthy arguments that lead to a proper and concluisive end, not an argument till eternity which is not profitable to any reasonable person but an Atheist or Satanist or Hater of Truths.

So All these grammar was just to obtain from you what are Truths to you, Established Truths, like You can not walk through walls Truth or can you? Or you can not live in the sea as a fish or you can not fly as a bird Truth.

I Stand on Truths seen in Nature and on Natural Law, I stand on it and I will fall with it.

But you have not disclosed your own Truths and neither are you willing to commit yourself to Any Certain Ground nor do you wish to stand or fall by anything.

So how can we know that what you say is True and it should be acted upon?

And I had commited myself to answering whatever reasonable question you may profer but you are not willing to disclosed your own grounds of standing for testing and verification as you wish to do to me.

For clearly we have opposing grounds, I Believe in the Most High, Creator of All, whom we call God, including all that represent Him, you believe in big-bang (I think, for you said so to another person)

So you have a case against me, I have a case against you.

On what basis of Truths are we going to measure the validity of our cases, for the basis must be upon Truths, Natural Truths, Seen and Proven by Nature, (Like if you walk into the sea until you the water covers your natural head, for one hour, you shall die Truth) Not Lies and Imaginations and conjectures which we have seen have killed people or put them in trouble.

I would have raised up a thread challenging you directly but I can see that you do not positively and directly answer a question put to you eg if i asked what is your name? Instead of answering " My name is Susan, nnenna etc, You shall answer "what is my name or what do you want to do with my name or some other evasive and counter response.

If you you are using this thread to practice evasive maneuvers, you've done a great job and there is nothing to be gained in arguing with you.

But I think you are doing more than play evasion but you are also trying to show the weak strength of your conviction by hiding and preventing your weaknesses from being challenged, which itself, is the Proof of Weakness for it is Seen, A True Strong Man Opens Himself to Challenge Both Weakness and all like Goliath did BUT a fake and false "strong" man only shows his strength and hides his weakness, THUS, HE IS WEAK!

That is the difference between I together with the All Mighty and weak you.

Whilst We Are Always Ready for a Challenge Anywhere, Anytime, day or night you have to adequately prepare ensuring that the circumstance is favourable to you (meaning there should be some chances to cheat and play unfair).

For your convictions can never be established on a fair fight, which is why you are not willing to commit, even when I have clearly asked you to lay the rules of engagement, so that I would show Nairaland, that your convictions are founded on a Lie and not On Truths!

But you love to make a contention out of a contention and in the end, many words fly all over the place and nothing is resolved.

I am sorry I do not participate in vain arguments and arguments to eternity.

For if you asked me, bonafide, what is my name, I would clearly answer you Dtruthspeaker.

Tamaratonye5:

You know, Tantrum, you got a lot of "huff, puff, and oh, it's just bluff and guff that makes up your stuff" in you.
I clearly didn't try to present logic and objective evidence to validate a creator in my post but directed you to an appropriate thread for that. Here's for faith. So it's funny you were looking for that in my post and not finding, try to help me define logic even asking to go learn. No, no, I have not embarrassed myself, but feel a little embarrassed for you rather. You should learn to read and comprehend or just read again and try your luck this time.

Tamaratonye5:
There is no intelligence in DNA, this is another tedious unevidenced assertion.

Proven!....by his statement.
You just love breaking your laws of logic, don't you? It's evident you've thrown out a mind of your own and will accept anything that comes remotely close to a pillow for your cozy lies. I guess you also accept without filtering, all the mainstream media feeds you. To begin with, simple question for my thread. Does consistency of pattern in repeated processes reveal intelligence, like in mass production in a factory? If so, tell me, without quoting another human, if the genetic code is unintelligent.

Tamaratonye5:
That would be nature with untold ubiquitous suffering from disease and predation? Question: If your "god" declared that slavery was moral, would you also accept that slavery is moral? In the interests of fair play, my position is that any form of slavery, including indentured servitude, is immoral.

I've mentioned r you on my thread. When you mention suffering, disease, predation, and distaste for slavery in one paragraph, you have no idea how much evidence you already provided for the creator and his perfect nature. I'll keep these in the record. Shall we tango? Of course, you can suggest the "romantic interlude".

Tamaratonye5:
Sorry to burst yours though, but that is a theistic claim, not an atheistic one.

LMAO. You must think I'm bubbled up in religionists or scientits's prejudices. Unlike you, I'm among the freeest men alive from tentacles and shackles of a fellow human's thought. Not even if it was "theistic", odd as it is you use that word on a false belief. I'm loyal only to logic and faith.

Tamaratonye5:
The entire scientific world disagrees with you, as does all the objective evidence. This also includes Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and a world leader in genetics, and he is a born again christian. Now despite his religious beliefs being based on risible unevidenced guff, his scientific credential are beyond repute, so this rather destroys your dishonest guff here.

Well, lookiehere, what do we have? Wonder if Tantrum can count how many of her 10 sacred laws of logic she and fellow evolutionists break with their belief? 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10. Oh heck, even 1,2.
And bandwagon fallacy is all I see in your post up there. Challenge my claim with facts and not theories first. Then try bringing forth the arguments and objective evidence for current evolution rhetoric, one by one, to my thread, to be trashed as usual. I'll take no credit for it, the accepted interpretation of evolution has long invalidated itself in the mind of critical thinkers for its obvious failure to satisfy the same old recycled questions it keeps avoiding with the excuse of a hopeful search for more convincing evidence and a merciful plea to not throw it out just yet. Researchers yet to come up with new ones, so well, let's go down the old track again.

Tamaratonye5:
It can be ingrained through childhood indoctrination or imbued through innocent wonder,

That moment it was so sure she didn't understand any I said about faith.

Tamaratonye5:
But, like many people experience, as I did, once the "scales fall fromyour eyes", and you can no longer hold on to the old truths and beliefs

Thread's titled "what's faith". It'll be a shame it ends with you still on this warped idea of it. Trust me, you and all those people never had an ounce of faith. Maybe good bible learning. Those are subject to change, even for the one with faith. But as matter's unchanged by learning, so faith. The crust, stars, trees, sky, haven't changed with all our learning, neither faith. Like these, it isn't learnt, but contacted. Y'all prolly went to church and learnt whatever men or books told you but faith, can't be gotten but by direct contact with creator himself. Tell me, did you ever have anything you can relate to direct contact with creator? Please elaborate. If not, you've never known faith. Sorry.

Tamaratonye5:
The fact remains there are inconsistencies all through the books of the Bible

Not a single one, bet ya. All due to your misunderstanding

Tamaratonye5:
But as I value truth, I still feel it my duty to challenge beliefs of all sorts, not out of any animosity but out of hope for better understanding for both parties.

Good luck with that. Till you can challenge the sun or moon, can't challenge faith. You'll only end up challenging fallacious religious doctrines, but not faith. Faith's either touch it or it isn't. Creator's the only source of it.

Tamaratonye5:
I do not consider myself ignorant of understanding divine matters, despite my atheism, that's just more of your prejudice.

Aww, ain't that cute, she offered her consideration for proof. Once again, I assure you 100%, you're 100% ignorant, nothing personal and as you bring your bogus ideas, I'll show you. Faith's where it all begins, and you can't get that from the holiest book on earth.

Tamaratonye5:
I have evidences of various kinds and from diverse sources that point to the suggestion that Paul subverted the Christian faith

I give no hoot bout human sources. Men are fallible. Now substantiate your claim objectively or just plain drop it.

Tamaratonye5:
and some of his writings reveal his resentments for Peter and the Jerusalem apostles that do not reflect brotherly love, but rather jealousy and bombast.

Tantrum at her finest. Substantiate please or next!

Tamaratonye5:
My real purpose is to ask how certain professing Christians are that they are following the true teachings of Christ.

Okay then, we could leave all others for later and start here. Well, not the professors, but every genuine believer has the substrate of faith in him. If he allows this grow like a germ in him, he need care not but he is 100% following all teachings of christ whose words, are spirit and life not for mere grasping but contacting, John 6:65, the substrate growing inside a man. Many believers however are not wise in their germ of spirit as the men are wise in their germ of reason, Luke 16:8

Tamaratonye5:
Can they be absolutely certain Paul did not dishonestly subvert Jesus’s insistence to observe the Mosaic laws.

Another misunderstanding from trying to reconcile two agents of faith from the germ of veiled reason. Reason looks at Moses with a veil, Paul, a man of faith, wise in his germ, merely takes off the veil, to look Moses in the face, 2 Cor 3:15-16. Sadly, even many genuine believers fall into such error.

Tamaratonye5:
and this Christians resent me.

Any Christian that resents you for your ignorance is obviously not growing his germ. You ought to be pitied only and hoped the best for, before you're even schooled on such
Finally, summary of all is come over my thread where we do the dirty work on the illogicality of atheistic beliefs including the portions of my post you avoided and for here, if you will learn of faith, start with my experiment on giving yourself unwavering hope of peace with creator. Evolutionists liking your posts when you're yet to logically justify any evolutionist beliefs . Agnostics on the subject deserve more respect than most evolutionists.

Dis whole argument no make sense.

She dey challenge Christians, dem answer, dem go rechallenge am, she no go answer but go answer by rechallenging the rechallenge, like table tennis wey ball no dey drop make person catch point.

But ball no gree drop nor person miss. We just dey turn our head or eye from one person to the other, till neck and eye dey pain person.

Very Boring!

Abeg make this travel go past.

Tamaratonye5:
RE: EXISTENCE OF GOD/S

Do the Harry Potter books validate wizards and wizardry? No book, including the bible, can validate it’s own claims, only objective evidence can do this.

The Harry Potter books are fantasy novel written works. There's nothing J. K. Rowling imagined in her series of fantasy books, that is not in the Bible, there are witch(es)/wizard(s). Now, J. K. Rowling, being a lifelong Catholic, it is obvious, she's delved into the realms of fantasy, writing imaginative fiction that she knows are impossible and/or improbable.

Tamaratonye5:
The first humans evolved just two hundred thousand years ago, evolution is billions of years old.

Stop the unnecessary pseudo substance showing off, but please stay within the circa 6000 years biblical A&E account

Tamaratonye5:
However this is just an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy you're using, a god of the gaps polemic.

You dont even know when and how to correctly use "Argumentum ad Ignorantiam"

Tamaratonye5:
Even without evolution, creationism us not supported by a shred of objective evidence, and your assertions suggest you don't even understand what the phrase means.

Creationism, is not supported by a shred of objective evidence, you say. Is that indeed so?.

What kick started evolution then?. Who and/what is the Brain, Scientist, Creator, Architect, Developer, Painter, Artist et cetera behind evolution and creation?

Tamaratonye5:
You have entirely missed the point, that theists assert evolved traits as part of a perfect design by an infallible deity, are demonstrably false. As the examples offered showed. That's what objective evidence looks like btw.

"Gorilla, way run comot from bush. Enter Lagos, hin enter bus, hin miss road, oh yes hin miss road" Eleniyan Abami Ẹda copyrighted

Tamaratonye5, you missed road. There was no perfection, as to be perfect, means unable to improve any further. Only God is Good. Only God is perfect. For crying out loud, A&E were a finished article, they weren't perfection or perfect.

OK, why not please make my day. Show me then, show me, where in the Bible, perfect design was suggested and/or presented. Show me where A&E was considered to be a perfect design.

Tamaratonye5:
And we know this isn't true, because humans evolved, this is a scientific fact, supported by all the objective evidence.

By observation, we can tell that an Intelligent Mind created the universe, man, everything within, below and above the earth. It is true, that, even science supports an intelligent design (i.e. ID)

Tamaratonye5:
Your interpretation of “red” are all human personality traits and qualities projected on to a simple wave length…
Oh my, Oh my, Oh my!!! Lookie here - demonstrable evidence of "red"…

Something a theist isn't able to provide for their invisible sky daddy of choice…

Whats the matter with you? I am talking representing, but you gone off on a tangent talking of interpretation. Red is the color used universally to signify danger, love, courage, strength, power et cetera. It is representing not interpretating

Is it from your frequents at forum.atheistrepublic.com thats made you conclude is an the analogy is an interpretation of “red”

Tamaratonye5:
I, as most atheists, can't have a definition of any deity, that’s axiomatic. I, as most atheists, only debate the deities theists imagine are real, and of course there are limitless deities and versions, which you disbelieve are real, but can offer no objective difference from the one you choose to believe is real.

If I had remained an atheist, I wouldn't think of ever debating with theists in a self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being I have decided doesnt not exist.

Tamaratonye5:
I disbelieve any of them are real, and for the same reason, that there is no objective evidence for the claim, no more or less for Zeus or Apollo, than for Jesus or Vishnu.

"Jesus said, "Thomas, do you have faith because you have seen me?
The people who have faith in Me, without seeing Me, are the ones who are really blessed!"
(i.e. Blessed are those who haven't seen Me but believe)
- John 20:29

Zeus is the god of the sky, lightning and the thunder in Ancient Greek religion and legends, and ruler of all the gods on Mount Olympus. Zeus is the sixth child of Cronos and Rhea, the king and queen of the Titans

Apollo, also is another god in Greco-Roman mythology, a deity of manifold function, he is god of prophecy and oracles, music, song and poetry, archery, healing, plague and disease, and the protection of the young. He is the son of Zeus and Leto and the twin brother of Artemis

Vishnu originally a minor Vedic god, but now is considered by his worshippers to be the most important gods in the Hindu pantheon and, along with Brahma and Shiva.

Jesus, is the "self existing, incorporeal, intelligent, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent supreme being" incarnate

It is your prerogative, freewill, by your own preference to believe or not believe.

Tamaratonye5:
RE: PAUL OF TARSUS
Ok, lol.

Glad you're now cheerful and happy about it

Tamaratonye5:
I know breaking it down in pieces to spoon-feed you will be a thankless effort given your apparent obstinacy and dogmatic idiocy, as well as your penchant for dishonestly twisting basic concepts, but I'll give it a shot anyway for the sake of viewers. This part of the conversation has been dragged unnecessarily long enough already

I can from such a remark like this, see that you are full of yourself. Whenever a person types about "... breaking it down in pieces to spoon-feed ...", it usually is either the person is very insecure inside, craves for attention, is so conceited and egoistical that just has to think too highly about himself/herself.

There is nothing of the nature like "... obstinacy and dogmatic idiocy, as well as your penchant for dishonestly twisting basic concepts", its Bible 101, its rudimentary and/or elementary theology, that if you know, you know and doesn't really need breaking down.

Has it occurred to you, that your slowness to understand, might be the cause why this part of the conversation has been dragged unnecessarily long enough already, hmm?

Tamaratonye5:
Faith: (your usage)
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
(Synonyms would be trust, confidence, hope, conviction.)

What's your beef with this legitimate usage and akin to a biblical definition here now?

Tamaratonye5:
The problem is in the theists definition:
Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. "rather than proof", faith itself is the evidence according to scripture.

Hebrews 11:1
"¹ Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…"
"³ Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God,
so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."

In Theism:
FAITH is the proof. It has nothing at all to do with your usage of the word.

"Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth,
for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks"
- John 4:23

Are you familiar with Hebrews Chapter 11:4-40 heroes of Faith? I am specifically talking about the famous "hall of faith" register book, hmm? Abraham et al willingness and/or preparedness to have a strong belief in God, based not on spiritual apprehension without immediate proof, but just sheer stark nakéd faith, earned him and others, a mention, a place and/or position in the greatly desired or enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame".

The giants in the corridor of the enviable Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" exercised one kind faith of the other that was taken by God to qualify as a semblance of righteousness acceptable to Him.

These great men and women of Hebrews chapter eleven "Hall of faith" or "Faith Hall of fame" didnt have the benefit of John 4:23 above, that we are enjoying but they saw far, yet none of them before they passed on, received all that God had promised, however the thief on the right hand side of Jesus on the cross saw into the future as well, believed what he perceived, so publicly acknowledged the innocence of Jesus and equally thereafter confessed the divinity of Jesus looking forward to be remembered.

Tamaratonye5:
It's just an observation, with a suggestion in tow. No apologies there at all.

I must confess that, I am increasingly growing skeptical of you at all seeing correctly

Tamaratonye5:
No, it doesn't

What would you know

Tamaratonye5:
You're trying too hard

This is all soft work, nothing hard at all in here to try hard at.

Tamaratonye5:
I was making an observation, not necessarily directed at anyone. But since you took offense, please see your doctor concerning your mental state.

I haven't any need for a doctor, but at this rate that you've deliberately forgotten typing "You managed to post a non sequitur, about your non sequitur! Then again, life is funnier than any team of comedy writers can imagine." then you defo should see a shrink, for trying to pass that the comment was directed at anyone.

Take offence ke? Why would I take offence when I already know you have a mental state challenge. I just wish you speedy recovery

Tamaratonye5:
You have no critical Bible exegesist study experience. Your signature is ignorance.

www.nairaland.com/attachments/6248100_obasanjosayingntor_jpeg19035170b7f2fc4a2c166956c808e236
Thanks for the compliment

Thank you, very much for the use of a bit of reverse psychology compliment there.

Tamaratonye5:
You have no ammo good or otherwise.

"Don’t waste what is holy on people who are unholy.
Don’t throw your pearls to pigs! They will trample the pearls, then turn and attack you"
- Matthew 7:6

You're a glutton for an earful, right. OK, you asked for it, so the quotation from Matthew 7:6 above, is why, I already told you I won't waste good ammo on you. Sorry Jane, my hands are tied.

Tamaratonye5:
You are unique alright, you repeat "misunderstood" like a parrot. I seek to know why he is misunderstood.

Have you ever heard the saying "keep your grass cut short to see the snakes" Well, you are snivelling like a baby adder and slithering snake I spotted in the green grass. You don't seeking nothing other than to see what you can mock, scorn and take the mickey/fun out from.

Tamaratonye5:
History is nasty. It cares nothing for your ignorant judgements. Neither do I.

When I typed "Prejudice, misunderstanding, ignorance, lies all rolled into one", it was correct sum totalling of you.

Tamaratonye5:
Distinct antisemitism there, Muslim prejudice?

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes:
(i.e. It is God's power to save everyone who believes)
first to the Jew, then to the Gentile."
- Romans 1:16

Nobody is bigger than the Gospel. The Gospel, the spread of the gospel is bigger than any particular ethnicity, colour, gender, sexuality, race, creed, culture, tradition et cetera. Apostle Paul, in 1 Corinthians 9:20, said "When I was with the Jews, I lived like a Jew to bring the Jews to Christ. When I was with those who follow the Jewish law, I too lived under that law. Even though I am not subject to the law, I did this so I could bring to Christ those who are under the law"

Tamaratonye5:
Agreed, history is a bitch, I love to know about it; we disregard it at our own peril.

This is the thing though, people always seemed to know half of history and so to get the whole thing confused with the other half, so its good that you love to know, as the more you know about history, particularly history of the Word, His Story, the properly free more, you become

Tamaratonye5:
Not explanatory enough for you evidently.

This is a poor attempt of soot, trying to tar an avalanche, black

Tamaratonye5:
This could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, lol

You've guessed that I keep my friends close, but my enemies closer, so, in order to evade your detection on my radar, you craftily opted for a yet approved beautiful friendship pact, lol

Tamaratonye5:
You don’t have the expertise to be dispensing credit.

Please stop over working your brain over nonsense talk like that

Tamaratonye5:
He who smells it first…?

Well, dont be offended, but you really did smell like a gust of wind from Satan's anus

Tamaratonye5:
Bitter? Presumptuous of you to say. I’m calling what I see. You have no answer. See above. You have no ammo.

With that level of raging torrent of slander and mud slinging, you really expected me to jump into the pigsty and roll in there with you, huh? Nah, you'll enjoy it better than I would, so I pass giving answer(s). I rather you wallow in mud and ignorance

Tamaratonye5:
The questions remain unanswered despite your "good" effort, I mean that honestly.

You typed, saying "You never answered any question. I would still be waiting had I not dropped the request. Really? I never answered any question? Gerrahere.

Tamaratonye5:
Denying the obvious, which anyone here with the slightest degree of honesty and/or objectivity, have witnessed of you, is really a form of admission. Fine. Gloves off.

Toothless bulldog

Tamaratonye5:
You've name-dropped god, of all people, in my conversation with another. I was not impressed.

Liar, liar, pants on fire. When and/or where is your proof, I name-dropped God?

Tamaratonye5:
I type like this when I am convinced further discussions will profit no-one. I have other things to learn. See you on the other end of this argument.

You aren't cut out for this. You priced market beyond your purchasing might and limit

Tamaratonye5:
FINIS.

The End, ni opin cinema. No closing credits of a list of the cast and crew, production sponsors, distribution companies, legal disclaimers et cetera. Why not?

HOW would you define faith? Some equate it with blind belief. Influential American essayist and journalist H. L. Mencken once called faith “an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.”

The Bible, in contrast, describes faith as being neither blind nor illogical. God’s Word says: “Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld.”​—Hebrews 11:1.

Given the different opinions about faith, let us consider the answers to the following questions:

• How is the Bible’s definition different from what many refer to when they talk about faith?

• Why is it vital that we develop the kind of faith that the Bible describes?

• How can you build strong faith?

A Title Deed and Solid Evidence

At the time of the writing of the Bible book of Hebrews, the Greek term translated “assured expectation” was commonly used. It often appeared in business documents and carried the idea of a guarantee of future possession of something. Therefore, one reference work suggests that Hebrews 11:1 could be translated: “Faith is the title-deed of things hoped for.”

If you have ever bought an item from a reputable company and then waited for it to be delivered, you have exercised that type of faith. The sales receipt in your hand gave you reason for faith in the company from which you bought the item. In a sense, that receipt was your title deed, your guarantee that you would receive what you purchased. If you had lost the receipt or had thrown it away, you would have lost the proof of your claim of ownership. Similarly, those who have faith that God will fulfill his promises are guaranteed to receive what they hope for. On the other hand, those who do not have faith, or who lose it, are not entitled to receive the things God promises.​—James 1:5-8.

The second expression at Hebrews 11:1, translated “evident demonstration,” carries the idea of producing evidence that contradicts that which only appears to be factual. For instance, the sun appears to revolve around the earth​—rising in the east, moving through the sky, and setting in the west. However, evidence from astronomy and mathematics reveals that the earth is not the center of the solar system. Once you become familiar with that evidence and accept it as true, you have faith that the earth revolves around the sun​—despite what your eyes tell you. Your faith is not blind. On the contrary, it gives you the ability to see things as they really are, not merely as they seem to be.

How Important Is Strong Faith?

This is the type of faith that the Bible encourages​—strong faith built on solid evidence, even if it requires that we adjust our beliefs. Such faith is vital. The apostle Paul wrote: “Without faith no one can please God. Anyone who comes to God must believe that he is real and that he rewards those who truly want to find him.”​—Hebrews 11:6, New Century Version.

There are many challenges to developing strong faith. But if you take the four steps discussed on the following pages, you can succeed.

Tamaratonye5:

I don't mean anything by it, as I never did say the universe wasn't created. Your question was disingenuous.

You actually did,hence my question....But it's all good.

Really? Obviously I wasn't aware, or I would not have made such mistakes.

Well, I'll venture to say it's because you are human. Just to digress a bit: The truth is, We humans are really not rational... We all filter the world through personal bias, prejudices & worldview. Humans are capable of objective logical reasoning, that's why we can spot deficiencies in others but when push comes to shove, we mostly make decisions based on emotions and bias rather than objective reasoning regardless of education or religious affiliation. There's a really good book on behavioural economics called Misbehaving: it's a good read. Or you can check out any other good book on one of the behavioural sciences incase you are interested in stuffs like this.

From my own experience and mine alone(so I could be wrong), whenever I get into a conversation where someone starts using words like "that's a so & so fallacy" alot, I just believe that conversation would not go anywhere... Mainly because I believe, we have already assumed a position of objective rationality(which is untrue)and put something on the table neither of us can uphold.... I regularly see where in the process of calling out the other side's fallacy, people end up making other fallacies or sometimes even the same one they are calling the person out for. Cos We are all human.

For me, a better conversation is when we both recognise our differences in worldview/bias and when one party is interpreting something wrongly, its simply pointed out and an explanation is given why their interpretation might be wrong. You end up agreeing on some things and disagreeing on others. At the end of the day everyone walks away, at the very least knowing a bit about how the other side is parsing the same information. That's just my own personal prejudice.

One of my reasons for spending time here is to learn. I would appreciate it if you would point out the fallacies I made.

I can make the case of your reply being an ignoratio elenchi. But as I said above it's really not that important and doesn't make for good conversation (atleast from my own prejudice).

Warpath? Me? Nah, I'm not even warmed up. I don't suffer fools. Based on experience, virtually all of the apologists I've met on Nairaland are pretty foolish, or if you prefer, willfully pig ignorant, arrogant, patronisng and intellectually dishonest.

Ouch I guess.

I believe I've derailed the thread enough though, so I'll just step aside.