₦airaland Forum

who else got this invite

Hello. This is to inform you that the management of S.N.L approved your details and has selected you to come over for an assessment interview on Friday 17/03/2017.
Time: 9am
Venue: 228 ikorodu road, opposite NEM insurance by Obanikoro b-stop, Lagos.
Come with your credentials and a passport photograph.
Pls you are strictly advised to be punctual.

For help/directions you may call the Admin Unit: 0909-467-9990.
www.snl.com
RC:023/MPT

WiseYoungMan:
Thanks, i'm going with this

Be careful, bro. Bitcoin doesn't grow. What you have are ponzi sites for coins. What appreciates is the value of dollar to bitcoin and not bitcoins itself. Be careful. I'd advise you keep it and work towards adding more coins.

I don't understand. Why do people sell bitcoin when they can create a BitX account, transfer it and withdraw directly to their Nigerian account? Is there something I'm missing?

cc150615:
Brotherly, why don't you leave anybody that wants to argue. Afterall you're not the one looking for job, I was still discussing with a friend today about how this generation of job-seekers are quick to tag a job advert/invite scam or gnld even without any legitimate proof,nd I can't help but wonder if they really need jobs as badly as they claim.

A Job that pays 15-20k daily? That's about 375,000 to 500000 a month. Is that not a good reason to reexamine it?

ksstroud:
Oga
They are not GNLD, it is a new recruitment firm...
Find out info before you nail post...

And they pay 15-20k daily? Was that a mistake?

zoedicus:
GNLD dem don come again. #Spotted.

Daily for that matter. I was foolish enough to apply for some Jobs via Jiji and I'm still paying the price. Rogues!

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See how your sparkle within these favorite lines transcend you.

You find the right words when you are explaining the unnecessary but short of words when faced with being rational

It is not easy to make a different argument and attach conclusions, ridiculing others(with figments of your imagination), within them.

Simple. Your 'response position' is not a philosophical, ideological or conception position–your argument, no problem.

The new task was to tell how your 'response position' makes sense and you are gathering spittle. That should be simple to any rational mind. Go on. Don't spit too much.

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

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



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

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

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

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

Exactly. It is easy to throw the jabs at any given opportunity but finds it boring to explain your points. And this same character will lay claim to superior intellect. Unfortunately, his brothers in the faith have deserted him.

If this was about the stupidity of God any dissenting view would have been placed in the asylum as is the custom but here he can't even argue out how his position is logical or how the nonsense agnostic atheism makes sense.

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

Agnostic-atheist -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are mutually exclusive positions and can never agree. It is like saying:

"The bachelor is unmarried because he's yet to see a spinster available for marriage"
"The man is married because he met an available spinster and married"

Therefore, we can call the man a Married Bachelor. Isn't this the kind of argument you'd hear from an alien? This is just a conglomeration of bull shit. It makes zero sense.

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

What are you examining?

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

Below is simple enough "response position".

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

By Frank Fernandez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enough of this your boring circus.

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

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

The truth is, you are defending atheism like the faith it is even though within you you can see it is not logical enough.

Whoever coined the word on agnostic atheism deserve a spank for misleading people and betraying meaning.

You need honesty if you really want to learn. Agnostic atheism is nonsense. It is saying you are literally an inhuman human.

I'd like to see how you respond to this.

miyagi01:
do u no ow much a land cost in lagos?

A land costs 60 million and that thing there was built with 100 million.

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

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

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

So how does anything make sense or nothing does?

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

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

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

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

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

You can take me up on this position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then you will be making a coherent sense here.

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

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

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

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

BaEnki:
Truth is subjective bro.

What's your truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BaEnki:
This is not for me though, but whatever

---

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

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

Are you interested in what is true?

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

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

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

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

I'm not kidding, I'm serous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even a two-story building is a mansion. And it's worth 160m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When you responded 'Nice one' to such conclusion I had hoped you bought his submission. Here you disagree.

akintom:
Using this your above analogy.

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

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

Haven established the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

akintom:
https://www.nairaland.com/3672486/absence-evidence-evidence-absence

Your thread didn't say how absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Maybe you should read it again. You see, I stake my handle, if you can prove to me how Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence(How Atheism is Logical) I'd DEACTIVATE this account.