₦airaland Forum

rastamouse: My brother, whether you believe in GOD or not, I must tell you that HE loves you. At least you are still alive and that is the greatest proof of what I am talking about.

So, the proof that God exists and loves me is my being alive. Interesting logic here. So when I die, that means he no longer exists and/or now hates me?

rastamouse: However if you intend to jump out of the plane without a parachute (JESUS), hoping that gravity does not exist, good luck on that assumption. Like the other wise scientist, I am warning you that gravity exist and you need the best parachute (JESUS) to survive the fall!

You're warning me? Oh, I'm so scared! On a side note, how about if the parachute turns out to be ZEUS instead? That means you'd be just as screwed as I'd be.

rastamouse: My bro, take a look at yourself in the mirror and that should be enough evidence to the love that the CREATOR of Heaven and earth have for you. GOD loves you and so do I, please don't leave careless!

How on earth does my image in the mirror correspond to the love "God" supposedly has for me?

Laryokeke: Once you get to heaven, you are shown ur mansions built with Gold but u cant sleep in them remember?
There's neither night nor day up there.

U ar den shown ur streets made of gold, <snip>...

Comments like this only validate my long-held belief that humans' idea of God and the afterlife is strictly modeled after their own lifestyle and fantasies. Hence, the reason why there are so many different versions of heaven. Mansions, gold, heaven. . . connect the dots. All fantasies.

rastamouse: What kind of man will not do proper research and investigation about what lies outside this life, knowing that he will die someday?

First error in this thought process is the assumption that there IS something that lies outside this life. Perhaps, you could put forward a research methodology to help investigate what you think lies outside this life? Maybe we could start with that; who knows, we might just stumble on something.

rastamouse: There were two scientists who had stayed all their lives in space. They decided to visit earth. One of the scientists had heard about gravity and told his colleague.

The colleague laughed at such an idea and said that nothing like that exists because it has no evidence in space. To be on the safer side, the scientist who believe in gravity took a parachute before going into the spaceship on the trip to the earth. The other scientist of course laughed at that as well saying it was a waste of time.

On entering the earth, they realized that they had miscalculated the gaseous levels when they built the spaceship. Their vehicle gave a signal that it was going to blow up so they should jump. They were several feet in the sky. The guy with the parachute just placed it at his back and jumped. He immediately started going down and instantly knew that it was the effect of gravity. He pulled the knob of his parachute and was carried down safely.

The other scientist also jumped...and realized rather too late that there is gravity.Of course he paid for his stupidity by crashing to the ground and bursting up.

What kind of "scientist" visits a planet without proper research and investigation? Your analogy is deeply flawed.

The way you religionists come up with daft analogies nowadays really baffles the mind. First, it was that dude citing Pascal's wager. Now this? And you wonder why people don't take you lot seriously?

[quote author=Missy_B link=topic=889435.msg10365408#msg10365408 date=1331309832]I still find it interesting and wow-ful  [/quote]In that case, here's another one to wow you.

How to calculate your age using chocolate

1. How many times do you eat chocolate in a week? (More than 1 and less than 10, sorry)

2. Multiply that number by 2

3. Add 5

4. Multiply by 50

5. If you have already had your birthday this year, add 1762. Otherwise, add 1761.

6. Now, subtract your year of birth.

You should have a 3 digit number.  The first one is how many times you eat chocolate per week.  The other 2 are your age.

(Only works for the current year.  For next year, you have to add 1 to the 1762 and 1761)

http://www.quibblo.com/quiz/g07Yik0/How-To-Calculate-Your-Age-Using-Chocolate

My dearest Missy_B,

[quote author=Missy_B link=topic=889435.msg10364018#msg10364018 date=1331298768]Very typical of Nairalanders!
One person says something, the others who lack the ability to think for themselves, like sheep, follow the man holding the crook and start to speak his language. 

The trick does not lie in the submission of your DOB - If it did, you'd still get an accurate answer if you provided your DOB and SS (shoe size) but changed the other figures, which is NOT the case.
The excellence of the 'magic' lies in knowing which numbers to pick and which arithmetic operation to apply.  So, yes, this is wow-ful. 

Sorry for humiliating the attempt at displaying smartness.  [/quote]While some of the responses are quite misguided, I do agree with the vast majority that do not exactly see the "fun" in this so-called trick, especially when I still have to supply my year of birth to determine my age.  Looking at the title of the post, one would have anticipated something out of the ordinary, as it seems almost inconceivable that anyone would be able to calculate their age just from their shoe size.  And while the trick does not entirely lie in the submission of your year of birth as you rightly stated, it however relies heavily on it to determine the outcome of your calculations (which is quite honestly DUMB, considering that the poster claims the trick is "a useful invention for PAs and MAs who cannot tell their correct age".)  It makes less sense - when you think about it - to attempt calculate anyone's age with their shoe size if they already know their year of birth anyway.

Furthermore, consider the following:

- For those born in the latter months of the year, the final answer is not exactly "accurate".

- The trick only works for those born AFTER 1912 AD.

- In essence, the claim to be able to calculate ANYONE's age with their shoe size is completely invalid.

So, no, this is not wow-ful.  

Even Google are paying their own "tribute" right here on this page. (See ad at top and bottom of the page)

Still - and in addition to my earlier comment - I haven't seen anyone here rebuke frosbel, a well known Christian fanatic on Nairaland, for also creating a thread about Hitchens right here in the Religion section.

Even more, the actual author of the tribute in that thread is a Christian blogger who posted the original article on his Christian blog.  There have been a few other religionists who have commented on his death, like Rick Warren on Twitter, like this blogger, like the fool in the video below, who claimed God sent Hitchens to hell because he loved him, etc.

So I see no reason why thehomer is being attacked for doing what even religious people have been doing as well, unless the argument is that an atheist shouldn't pay tribute to a fellow atheist in the Religion section, which isn't a sound argument seeing that even religious people are doing the exact same thing.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FmIMAA46A8&feature=related[/flash]

frosbel:
It took death to turn Christopher into a believer.

When asked sometimes last year about his thoughts about the afterlife and whether he'd convert at his death bed, knowing he would die soon anyway, here's what he said:

"I would say it fractionally increases my contempt for the false consolation element of religion and my dislike for the dictatorial and totalitarian part of it.

"It’s considered perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people who you don’t know but who are unbelievers and say, ‘Now are you gonna change your mind?’ That is considered almost a polite question.

"And as you know, there's a long history of fraud about this - people claim that Darwin had a death bed recantation, they made up lies about Thomas Paine, it goes on all the time. . ."

See video below:

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbBVB66DC5k&feature=related[/flash]

I really don't think a tribute to Hitchens in this section is misplaced.  Hitchens was perhaps best known for his religious views, however anti.  Agreed, he was many things, but his religious views were arguably the most pronounced.

Oh no, not again.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp

thehomer:
He will be missed.

Indeed. Only got to find out about his death a few minutes ago. RIP Hitchens.

#GodIsNotGreat

Very well then Sagamite, I hear you!

@Sagamite:

You have made some really good arguments.  Others, I could still refute, but I'll refrain.  However, one line in your entire post really struck me.

Sagamite:
Remember the opinions of people in the UN are not the opinions of God. The people in the UN are not Gods. What they say is not irrefutable.

By your own admission, the UDHR is not sacrosanct.  By whose/what standards do you then disregard the entitlement of homosexuäl people to any rights at all?  If I remember correctly, you said previously that gäy people have no rights whatsoever.  And by implication, this means that you regard gäy people to be non-humans.

By the way, what would you rather have gäy people do instead?  Get married to members of the opposite sex, against their own will, just for societal acceptability?  Or find a way to get themselves "converted" to heterosexuality?  Homosexuality has always been here, and will always be. Nothing anyone can do about that.  I still find it hard to understand the grouse of we straight folks.  It's not like gäy people are constantly harassing or harming us.  They are simply asking to be allowed to get married to one another, among themselves.  Why is this so hard to accept?  Sheesh!

Hi Sagamite, this argument is fast wearing me out, plus it's weekend - someone needs my attention.   So I'll keep this brief, and hopefully, we can reach some level of agreement, or simply agree to disagree.  I won't address all your points, since doing so would mean repeating myself.

Sagamite:
The clarification of the implicit or explicit meaning of the article is very important. You have to take a stance considering the ambiguity.

Considering the time the human rights article was written (60 years ago) and the kinds of countries that are to agree to it. It is either one of the 2:

1) The understanding of the concept of marriage UNIVERSALLY at that time was convergent that it is of man and woman, not man and man or the reverse. So the lack of detail is implicitly implied as ALL the countries only have one understanding and definition of marriage at the time of conception.

Or you take:

2) The deceit you alluded to earlier.

You can't dodge that for the sake of devil's advocate.

Fallacy of false dilemma.  How about a third option that says that the understanding of the "universal" concept of marriage was/is simply a union between two consenting adults?  I did not allude to any deceit by the way.

Besides, while marriage in itself could be considered an almost universal concept (if we look closely enough, I'm sure we'll find it's not really universal), one thing that is certain is that there is NO universal concept of marriage.  The concept of marriage varies largely:

     * from place to place,

     * the culture of the society in which it's being practised,

     * the circumstances (such as the type of same-sex marriage practised in some parts of Eastern Nigeria)

     * and even the historical period (you only need to read through history to realise that your universal "man-woman" union has not always been the case
        at all e.g. same-sex marriage was very common in many Native American tribes before the advent of Christianity).

Historically, there are well documented traditions of ancient civilizations that practised such and it was perfectly normal at the time.  Your submission that there is a UNIVERSAL concept of marriage and/or its understanding is an erroneous one.

Having said that, can you still be so bold to claim that Article 16 of the UDHR applies ONLY to heterosexual unions?

Sagamite:
It is not another issue. Explain to me how the SAME thing you quoted to suggest catering for homosexuality does not give protection and catering for polygamy. You want to use your argument for selective applicability? If not, how come the countries that are quick to quote the "human rights" are the same ones that can not respect it for polygamy?

What does that tell you? The article is ambigious (by error of extant societal influence and unconscious cognitive omittance of the time, . . . . just like the bible) and open to self-serving implementation? How can you say that is not relevant?

Here's an analogy that better explains the tu quoque fallacy:

If a doctor says smoking is bad, but he himself is a chain smoker, infact, a drug addict.  Would the fact that the doctor smokes make smoking any less dangerous?

Why I deemed that point of yours irrelevant to this discourse is because we would simply deviate from the current subject matter and would soon forget why we're having this argument in the first place.  We're discussing the rights of gäy people, don't forget that.  Irrespective of the hypocrisy (real or perceived) of the West, that they appear to act in an inconsistent manner does not invalidate the original argument.

Sagamite:
Your right is limited to societal acceptability.

The UN, not too long ago, affirmed an individual's right to blaspheme.^[1]  Considering the highly religious nature of the Nigerian society, societal acceptability to blasphemy is not even realistic to begin with.  Yet, I, as an individual, have the right to blaspheme.  Would you say that my right, in this sense, is limited to what society accepts?  Freedom of speech, anyone?



1. United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

@Sagamite:

The only way you'd have a point in this Human Rights argument is if you could somehow find a way to establish that gäy people are not human beings. Till then, sorry, but you have no case here.

Sagamite:
So you believe that and yet you think it is valid then to use this as evidence to support your argument? 

No, I don't necessarily believe that.  I was simply offering a possible explanation to your query as to why I think Article 16 covers homosexuals as well.  I'm glad you did not refute that though.  Nice to know we're heading somewhere.  It would equally be nice if we could deal with one issue at a time.

Sagamite:
You don't realise it makes your argument weak? 

Not in the least.  On the contrary, the reverse is the case, as you're basically committing a red herring here - an appeal to motive.  Even if there is an ulterior motive (and I'm not admitting that there is), it does not make that declaration any less valid.

Sagamite:
First of all, you are saying it was written by men with dubious intentions that were trying to hide something (in ambiguity) in a declaration we are all suppose to agree to. And you are now saying we should respect and be binded by that hidden deceit?

My saying that it was a clever ploy does not imply that the intentions were dubious.  60 years ago, people were far too close-minded to even bear the thought of merely discussing the issue of homosexuality.  In my opinion, the best way to have prevented a possible outcry then was to enshroud it in a cloak of ambiguity, at least, till when humanity would be mature enough to handle such sensitive issues.  Nothing dubious about that.  It's just wisdom; plain and simple.

Sagamite:
Secondly, you are saying the key stakeholders themselves were deviants, so did it for their own gain.

Thirdly, you are exposing your ability to figure out that these was written by mere men (some with hidden agenda), so why should their thoughts (since I am a man myself) dictate, not even guide, dictate my values?

Again, a fallacious appeal to motive.  No, not even that.  This is a typical case of ignoratio elenchi. 

By the way, you only see it as deceit because you already consider homosexuality to be "disgusting" anyway.  I see no such thing.  Furthermore, I think you're digressing here.  Your initial objection was that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not making any provision for gäy rights.  All I simply did was to show otherwise since the specific declaration in contention was stated ambiguously.  And I only went further to offer a possible explanation for the ambiguity.  I could be wrong.  I did not help your case in anyway, neither did I weaken my own arguments by so doing.

Sagamite:
Remember when I said this?

[quote author=Sagamite link=topic=813979.msg9673860#msg9673860 date=1322774054]http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

And those lists are effectively people's opinions.

These really killed your human rights argument.[/quote]lol.  So now you're rejecting that aspect of the Declaration on the simple basis that you think it was a dubious insertion?  What in this world is not "people's opinions" really?  We can choose to disagree with them, but that does not make their point any less valid.

Sagamite:
So why is polygamy and i[/i]ncest banned if people should have complete freedom to choose their spouse?

Are the people lecturing us on "human rights" abusing human rights?

The [i]Tu quoque fallacy.  Another issue entirely.  It has no place in this discourse.

Sagamite:
1. It is not a fundamental human right.

2. It is not even a human right.

It IS the fundamental human right of all ADULTS to get married, while having complete freedom in the choice of a spouse.  This has been established already.  Note that you did not refute this, you only diverted attention to something else.

Sagamite:
3. That said, even the whole UNHR human rights document, as good as it is, is partly junk and is not something that should be held as some golden rule.

You should have stated this at the beginning of this discourse.  I would have approached the whole discussion differently.  What's the point discussing human rights when by your own admission, you regard parts of the Universal Human Rights Declaration to be junk?

Sagamite:
4. It is unnatural and disgusting, hence is susceptible to societal moral judgement.

I hope you do realise that religionists do think the same of your religious stance.  Hey, maybe you have no rights too, you bloody heathen!

Sagamite:
I will answer this when we exhaust the "human rights" part. Trust me.

Lol.  This question is not in anyway dependent on our "human rights" discussion.  Just answer right away.

Sagamite:
As a moderator, I can see your post that was blocked by the spambot. I am assuming the stewpid thing as banned you as well so I will be passing it on so they unban both.

Thanks, my post is still missing though.

Sagamite:
But I would answer it.

It is clear there that the document does not define marriage, so what makes you think it includes homosexuality?

Considering that this declaration was adopted over 60 years ago, I would consider the ambiguity of this 16th declaration to be a clever ploy, especially since the committee that drafted and approved the Declaration was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, who today is largely believed to have been bisexual.  The Declaration does state indeed that men and women both have the rights to marriage.  Homosexuäls are men and women too, aren't they?  Article 16 basically says, so far you an an adult, then you have a right to get married.  It makes no distinction based on the adult's sexuäl orientation.  It doesn't say only heterosexual adults can get married. It says ADULTS (men and women of FULL AGE), so far it is consensual.

This particular declaration was further expounded in the Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages:

". . .Reaffirming that all States, including those which have or assume responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories until their achievement of independence, should take all appropriate measures with a view to abolishing such customs, ancient laws and practices by ensuring, inter alia , complete freedom in the choice of a spouse, eliminating completely child marriages and the betrothal of young girls before the age of puberty, establishing appropriate penalties where necessary and establishing a civil or other register in which all marriages will be recorded,"[color=#990000][/color]
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/convention.htm

I would guess that complete freedom to choose a spouse would include all genders, insofar it's consensual.

Sagamite:
So why is [i]i[/i]ncest and polygamy banned in the West then? The whole rules qualifies them. Is that an abuse of fundamental human rights too?

I have yet to read/hear any valid arguments against homosexuality, except the cries of bible thumping & quran brandishing fellows, and a few others who feel it's just bad simply because it "disgusts" them.  All these are mere emotional reactions that have no sound basis.  On the other hand, there are very valid arguments against incést (congenital defects, etc) and to some extent, polygamy (I have no strong opinions concerning the latter, I personally think it's not proper, but then, I wouldn't deny polygamists their rights to be human insofar they're not hurting anyone by their virtue of being polygamists).

Sagamite:
What is "full age" in that declaration article?

18 or 21, depending on where you are?

Sagamite:
Yes, I ignored your question for now because I wanted to deal with the first part first.

So would you change your perception about gäy people if homosexuality is proven beyond reasonable doubt to be perfectly natural?

@Sagamite,

I have not the strength to go back and forth with you on this issue, seeing that you hold your opinions on it highly.  So I guess we may just agree to disagree.  My only grouse here is what seems to be a denial of their fundamental human rights.  "Human rights are 'commonly understood as inalienable fundamental rights to which a person is inherently entitled simply because she or he is a human being'."  Gäy people are human beings who cause no harm by their virtue of being gäy, and should be treated as such.

One question though:  If the gäy genes are eventually conclusively found to be present in humans, in other words, if homosexuality is eventually proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be natural, would you change your perception about gäy people?

Sagamite:
You have to realise that in all countries, there are many things that do not harm us but disgust people and are banned based on the disgust. It is part of having a sane and balanced society. Nothing unusual or out of place. Some of such laws you are so oblivious to (because of your value biases) you don't even realise despite them being of less harm and disgust than poofterism.

But Sagamite, we can't be making laws merely based on how "irritable" certain things are to us.  That would be setting a dangerous precedent, don't you think?  If an action cannot be established to have any known visible/physical negative impact on another, why make it a crime?  Maybe non-religious people should be next on the Senate's hit list.  Atheists and agnostics are already considered "disgusting" in Nigeria anyway.

Sagamite:
I don't believe in all that argument of human sexuality. How come it is only in humans we see such spectrum? Choice because of how superior reasoning?

Not only in humans have we seen such.  Quite a number of animals have been shown to engage in homosexuäl acts.  Bonobos, black swans, dolphins, penguins, etc just to name a few.

Sagamite:
I have an open mind but it comes with a filter. Let them do an unrestrained and conclusive study on homosexuality and lets find a consensus on the cause before we start dragooning people to accept it despite its disgust.

In that case, wouldn't it be rather wise to maintain a neutral stance while still acknowledging their rights as the human beings that they really are?

At times like this, I really miss Bawomolo.


Anyway, I'm quite surprised at Sagamite's reaction to this, considering the fact he is quite an intelligent fellow with no known religious beliefs that might have engendered such high level of homophobia.

One question that homophobes - that avidly support the criminalization of homosexuality - have often failed to answer is, "What EXACTLY is the CRIME of the gäy man or the lesbiän woman?"

The sexuäl orientation of the homösexuäl man or woman may disgust us - I personally find it really distasteful, but then, that is my personal bias, perhaps owing to my religious upbringing.  But that does not give anyone any reason to discriminate against them or to deny them their fundamental rights.  Unless of course, you can establish beyond doubt that gäy people aren't humans.  More often than not, we tend to forget that their sexuality - however queer - is just one of many aspects of their humanness.

One person asked earlier about how homosexuals would procreate.  That question borders on a very shallow understanding of human sexuality.  It presupposes that sex and sexuality is all about making babies.  If that were the case, there would be no bisexuals or pansexuals.  Human sexuality is very intricate, as there are still a whole lot of things we have yet to learn about this aspect of humanity.  And as a result, I would think that the reasonable and honorable thing to do would be to simply keep an open mind towards it.

Lastly, those that think that homosexuality is a "white man's decadence" that is "corrupting" Africa may do well to do some reading about the [url=https://www.google.com/#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=history%20of%20homosexuality%20in%20africa&pbx=1&oq=history%20of%20homose&aq=1&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=sc&gs_upl=853l3130l0l4833l17l12l0l1l1l0l237l1973l1.8.3l13l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=e1397b868067491e&biw=1366&bih=667&pf=p&pdl=300]history of homosexuality in Africa[/url].  Homosexuality has always been in Africa long before the white man stepped foot on its shores.

justcool:
You didn’t. Please what does the word alleged imply?

[quote author=justcool link=topic=774410.msg9276046#msg9276046 date=1317753240]The alleged atheist believes that this deity is nature.

The alleged atheists have just substituted God with nature, the universe, or the singularity that existed before the big slam.

The people who parade themselves as atheists are only alleged because they only reject the creator as a deity, or as a living deity; but they always believe in the creator (causer of the universe) as phenomenon that is different from God of the religionist.

[/quote]Here are some of the key statements you made previously.  The highlighted are the deist's belief, not the atheist.  Also, the reason you gave as to why your own description of atheists is "alleged" is wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in any creator/deity whatsosever.

justcool:
This is just blind argument. There is no creator; what does that mean? That the universe was uncaused.

What is blind about the argument?  Believing that the universe is uncaused is very different from believing that the universe is the uncaused.

justcool:
You said a god/creator; so do they believe in many god/creators?

They hold no such beliefs.

justcool:
Wow! The phrase “Uncaused causer” suggests intelligence Wow!!

Yes it does.  Read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncaused_cause

justcool:
Besides I never said “uncaused cause” I said “uncaused causer”

What's the difference?

justcool:
Simple!!!! If you believe that the universe is was not caused; you simply believe that it is “uncaused causer” The same way that religionist believe that God is uncaused!!!!!

Nope.  If you believe that the universe was not caused, you simply believe that it has no cause (it came about by chance, etc).  No need playing with words here.  Saying that the universe itself is the uncaused cause is basically saying that the universe is god, which is strictly a pantheistic worldview.

justcool:
Wow!!! My brother, nonthesitic is an umbrella term that covers so many religious beliefs including atheism.

This is  from the link that you provided: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

To further show you that there are degrees to atheism; read this from the same link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism

I am aware of the broadness of this term.  However, the reason I said it would be a "more appropriate" term is because there is an outright absence of deities in Buddhism - a stance which is more consistent with broader non-theism descriptor - rather than the disbelief and/or denial of deities that is normally associated with atheism (which in itself, is a subset of non-theism).

justcool:
Thanks

You're welcome.

P.S.  I read through your initial post again and realised that you seem to have lumped deism, pantheism and pandeism together into one, and have therefore created an entirely new identity from this amalgamation - one which you have erroneously(?) labelled the "alleged atheist".

justcool:
Dude please read my post and try to understand it before you reply. I am not confusing deism with atheism.

I read and understood your post very well before replying, and it appears you've got atheism mixed up with an entirely different concept. Most of the attributes you ascribed to the "alleged atheist" applies more to the deist than any other.

justcool:
Please show me where you got the definition that "Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused causer" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them."

What do you mean?  That was not a definition.  I was simply stating to you what atheists do not believe in, contrary to what you wrote.

justcool:
An atheist is simply a person who doesn't believe in God

Exactly.  And it ends there.

justcool:
or in the creator or causer as conscious being or conscious deity.

Wrong.  Atheists simply do not believe in a god/creator.  Fullstop.  There is no "or" in the atheist's position.  Whether this alleged creator is a conscious being or not is irrelevant to the atheist.

justcool:
Let me break it down for you for the last time; a person who doesn't believe that the universe has a creator or a causer is simply implying that the universe is the uncaused causer.

Now, here lies the problem.  How on earth does unbelief in a creator automatically translate to a belief in an uncaused cause, much less a belief that the universe itself is this uncaused cause?  That is a contradictory stance, considering that the very phrase "uncaused cause" suggests intelligence which the atheist vehemently rejects.  No sir, atheists do not believe that the universe is the uncaused cause.  That is the Pantheist's belief.

justcool:
There are degrees in atheism. Do you know that a some Buddhists can be considered atheists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Yes, I know.  Although "non-theists" would be a more appropriate term.

justcool:
Atheism and religionism are not mutually exclusive.

Perhaps.  But this is a moot point anyway.

justcool:
@hakiri
Please dispute this striking similarity:

Both the alleged atheist and religionist(not only Christianity) believe that the universe was created or caused by an uncaused causer, an eternal and infinite deity(or thing) that has neither a beginning nor an end. Both believe that this deity existed before the present state of the universe

The religionist or believer believes that this deity is a conscious being. He calls this deity God.

The alleged atheist believes that this deity is nature. It existed as a singularity before the big slam; it became or created the present state of the universe during the big slam. Before the big slam it was a non-physical singularity; and during the big slam it created the physical world or it became physical.

So the bottom line is that the alleged atheist believes that this deity is a thing (an infinite unexplainable singularity) that has always existed in one form or another, and requires no creator.

The theist believes that this deity is a being (God) has always existed, and requires no creator.

Now do the math!! The alleged atheists have just substituted God with nature, the universe, or the singularity that existed before the big slam. One ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable infinite singularity; the other ascribes the origin of the universe to an unexplainable God. Keep in mind that some religionist’s description of God very closely sounds like the theist’s “infinite singularity” only expressed in different words!

The fact that alleged atheist does not worship or pray to this singularity that he ascribes the origin of the universe to, does not make him any different from the religionist. Remember there are the religionists who do not believe in worship and prayer either.

While you digest this, keep in mind that a deity doesn’t necessarily have to be a being or a living thing; a thing or a phenomenon can also be regarded as a deity, especially if that thing or phenomenon is held in high esteem or ascribed some supernatural powers to. Such supernatural powers as atheists ascribe to the singularity that caused the universe.

Finally the belief in either God, (whether the infinite singularity or God of the religionist) requires faith, because neither the belief nor the non-belief can be based purely on science.

I use the expression “alleged atheist” because most people who parade themselves as atheists are in reality theists, only that they do not believe in the religionist’s perception of the creator. Anybody who believes in anything regarding the beginning or causation of the universe cannot be regarded a true atheist. I have never seen one; in fact, in my opinion, it is impossible for a human being to be a true atheist. Human always believe in something regarding the origin of anything they came in contact with.

The people who parade themselves as atheists are only alleged because they only reject the creator as a deity, or as a living deity; but they always believe in the creator (causer of the universe) as phenomenon that is different from God of the religionist.

A true atheist should not believe in the idea of pre-present universe, he should scorn the idea of the cause of the universe as a non-physical infinite singularity. He should simply see the physical as all that there is, and as always being physical; thus requiring no creation or transformation from any non-physical state. But then still, he wouldn’t be a true atheist; he would only have substituted God with the physical!

Calm down.  You are confusing atheism with deism.  Atheists do not believe in an "uncaused cause" and the other "beliefs" you have ascribed to them. That's the deist's domain. Perhaps, you and Deep Sight may wanna have a talk.

toba:
Instead of u to ignore him.

The worst he can do is to lock the thread which is ultravires cos hes got no such powers

You should cover your face in shame, fraudster.

Enigma:
^^^ That evangelical atheists are also religionists and should stop being hypocritical!

So in essence, this is another of such "Atheism is a religion" threads. I still don't get what's there to discuss, seriously.

toba:
Stop derailing the thread and lets address the points raised

And what exactly do you wish to address?  So what if you somehow manage to establish the ridiculous notion that Christianity and Atheism are similar, what then would that prove?  That atheists are christians in diguise?  Or that christians are closet atheists?  What exactly is the point of this thread?

^^ SMH.

Just give it up already.

toba:
Based on the foregoing, i have drawn some similarities that may be found between the Christians and the atheists from different sources.

No you didn't.  Someone else did.

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles/basic-similarities-between-christianity-and-atheism

I just finished a course in Usability last week, and this issue was one of the numerous topics treated.  From Usability viewpoint, it has been reported that majority of users (about 90% or so) do NOT read manuals.  So, this is not a 'Nigerian' thing at all.

And Wallie is right.  One of the most fundamental usability attributes is Learnability.  Products should be easy to learn and easy to use, intuitively.  Any system that causes a user to first of all consult a manual before figuring out a thing about that system most likely has a very poor design (from engineering & usability perspective) and therefore has serious Usability issues (unless it's a really complex system, or the user is exceptionally dull).

Manuals are simply there for reference purposes, most times when you hit a dead end with your devices or you're trying to use some advanced features.  They're not novels that should be read from kpali to kpali.

Uyi Iredia:
Atheism is the belief that there are no God/gods.

Here we go again.

So when people believe that there are no God/gods, that makes them religious?