Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,150,484 members, 7,808,768 topics. Date: Thursday, 25 April 2024 at 04:34 PM

Tamaratonye5's Posts

Nairaland Forum / Tamaratonye5's Profile / Tamaratonye5's Posts

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 2:01pm On Sep 08, 2022
MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully? smiley
Can't be good without God is an open admission that your belief in god is the only thing preventing you from killing people and stealing things.

I hope you never lose your faith, please, please keep on believing.

6 Likes 1 Share

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 1:54pm On Sep 08, 2022
Wilgrea7:


Why did you edit my response to make it look like I said something i didn't say? What sort of game are you trying to play here?
You must not be familiar with Maximus. Ignorant, unscholarly, uninformed, crass,
mendacious, self-righteous, chief of obfuscation, lies, prejudice - it's all a part of his M.O. Requesting honest, flexible discussion from this man is a tough ask. Would be better off playing chess with a pigeon.

Wilgrea7:

The problem I was referring to was the answer to moral questions. I said shifting the burden to a God doesn't solve the problem.. meaning it doesn't make moral problems any easier to answer.

How does what you're saying now relate to what i said?
As I said earlier, he doesn't know jack, nada, zilch. Not a single thing, nope, he hasn't got a clue, what's being discussed right now on this thread. He's not aware of the requisite details and facts concerning the subject of morality. He doesn't know the basics. To top it all off, he's not even aware of this fundamental ignorance and insists on making blind arguments and assertions.

When it comes to intellectual discourse, simpletons like this only serve as a cheap form of amusement to those who know better, that is, until they start to bore the crowd and become nothing more than a nuisance.

3 Likes

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 9:42am On Sep 08, 2022
MaxInDHouse:

Why you do atheists often confuse yourselves?...
Unfortunately, it's not a matter of confusion, Maximus. It's your reading and comprehension skills that seems to have you stuck and befuddled. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

This isn't Kingdom Hall. You're out of your depth here.

9 Likes

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 6:56am On Sep 08, 2022
MaxInDHouse:
Instead of this lengthy write-up why not allow the OP to address the two questions if you can't? smiley

LOL. Same old clueless Maximus. I'd have had more respect for you if could admit that the crux of my submission flew past your over-sized head.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 6:47am On Sep 08, 2022
MaxInDHouse:

If your morality is not from a SUPREME BEING do you expect your neighbour to develop his own or comply with yours?
If each person just have to develop his or her own morality how do we cohabit peacefully? smiley
Say some actual objective morality exists. Is the entirety of humanity in compliance with it? No. Is that a problem? Say that it is. Can it be fixed? Whatever remedies have been attempted thus far have been failures. All of them. We only have to look at the last 10 minutes to find 100,000,000 or so violations around the world.

The closest any human culture has been able to achieve is to establish a body of law and the means to enforce it. But it's very spotty. That we have such trouble with "morality" across our whole history of existence indicates that we don't actually know what morality even is - much less how to always be in accord with it.

People like you keep insisting religion holds the remedy, but religious "remedies" have been the most spectacularly counter-productive of any of them.

To my mind "morality" isn't the problem. The problem is competing and conflicting self interests will always hamper the cooperation that is the heart of a successful social species. As individuals, learning to cope with disappointments and find compromises, and seek fair outcomes leaves the least bloodshed.

But that assumes bloodshed is undesirable. One of the most defining aspects of human nature is its love of bloodshed. A remote observer could conclude, looking at all of human history, that absence of bloodshed constitutes the most grave violation of "morality" of all.

2 Likes

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 5:37am On Sep 08, 2022
budaatum:


Sow me where Christianity teaches "that if you don't accept Jesus and believe he's the son of a god you're going to burn in everlasting hell" please. I must have missed that.

In many passages

The entire concept of "salvation" is about not winding up eternally tortured by burning sulphur. So called "salvation" is only possible by believing the Jesus doctrines. You could end global hunger and eradicate aging and make unlimited ice cream available to everyone 24/7 and still spend eternity impaled on a spit for failing to believe in Jesus.

Any actual "salvation" of humanity will only be realized by the complete eradication of religion.

2 Likes 1 Share

Religion / Re: Religion 101 Exam by Tamaratonye5(f): 8:29pm On Sep 07, 2022
FemiAjani:
Hi, SlayerofSatan



Answers will vary. It's like asking where non-Lagosians live. Where do non-Lagosians live? Lots of places. Just not Lagos. Where do atheists get their morality? Lots of places. Just not from theism. Also, you're in broken-record territory here. This is apologist boiler plate and it's really low-quality stuff. Rarely you'll find an atheist who hasn't thought through this, usually because they're too young or have only recently deconverted and so haven't had much opportunity to learn about the topic. Early twenties is about where its limited efficacy drops from "rarely works" to "almost never works". Most of us are pretty sick of theists implying or outright shouting that we can't be moral just because we don't share your belief in the specific religious doctrine of a god existing. We hear it a lot and experience has taught us that the people saying it do so mostly out of ignorance (believing, wrongly, that it's true) or active malice (knowing better, but slandering us anyway because theists don't have to abide by basic human decency, I guess).

If you're taking this approach out of ignorance rather than malice, Wikipedia's articles on secular morality and secular ethics are decent (if abbreviated) starting points for learning about the topic. But your question felt more rhetorical than inquisitive, so maybe you're not interested in learning the answer. This trick is most effective for preaching to other theists who don't know better, in an attempt to get them to hate their atheist neighbors and so... I dunno, not talk to us so they don't start questioning the faith? See us as a common enemy and thereby unify the ranks? Harass us in an extortionary attempt to force us to convert? Make object lessons of us and so menace those who might otherwise leave? Stochastic terrorism? Motives for using it vary, and any particular instance of saying it out of malice can include any or all of these motives. But it's only really effective when talking to theists, and specifically theists who don't know better. Trying this trick on us (or on theists who do know better) will just alienate your audience and drag your religion's reputation through yet more muck. If you want to be an effective apologist, rather than a performative one, you need to up your game far past the bar set by Ray Comfort.
Superfluous adverb removed.
Religion / Re: Why I Believe Atheists Are Not Good People by Tamaratonye5(f): 10:02pm On Oct 29, 2021
jamesid29:
[size=8pt][/size]
There's a lot to unpack here but I think you missed the central points of my claims.

Pls refer to some of my other post to Reed and vic2ree (especially the last one), to get the core of what I was pointing out. Thanks
I've read them all, thank you very much, but you have not successfully made the case that there is One True Definition. If two different dictionaries have two different definitions, how do you get to claim one is the standard and the other is not?

Furthermore, I don't see what's so unsettling about the claim "lack of belief" since it is basically the null hypothesis between "I believe god(s) exist" and "I don't believe god(s) exist. I can assume that a lack of belief is appropriate until evidence shows otherwise.
Religion / Re: Why I Believe Atheists Are Not Good People by Tamaratonye5(f): 7:29pm On Oct 29, 2021
jamesid29:
Near1:

These four references from your list did not support your assertion:

Atheism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://iep.utm.edu/atheism/
"The term 'atheist' describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
Okayy. How is that contradictory to what I stated?
What you said is that atheism according to these sources does not provide representation of the definition that atheism equals a lack of belief. A person who "does not believe" is a person who lacks belief in the proposition that a god exists. The two are largely synonymous, so examining your first citation you were wrong.

Here's what you claimed:

It turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
In almost all the encyclopedia & dictionaries of philosophy and amongst philosophers and in academia the standard definition of atheism is " the belief/view that there is no god(s)" or put in another way "The proposition that God(s) do not exist."

jamesid29:
Near1:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism...of-atheism
"Instead of saying that an atheist is someone who believes that it is false or probably false that there is a God, a more adequate characterization of atheism consists in the more complex claim that to be an atheist is to be someone who rejects belief in God for the following reasons (which reason is stressed depends on how God is being conceived):" etc.
Firstly sir,The link you pasted is incorrect and I did a word search on britannica's topic on atheism, but your exert didn't come up. Below is Britannica's reference on athiesm under the subject of philosophy. I'll also paste a picture of it's entry if you'd like.

Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/atheism
This citation appears to be defective as well, as it characterizes atheism as, "rejection of religious beliefs." That's perfectly consistent with lack of belief; if you reject a belief, you don't hold that belief. It doesn't necessarily mean you embrace a position opposite to those beliefs in denying that a god exists. The Britannica entry makes that clear in the following quote where it points out that conceiving of atheims as a denial is problematic:

To say that atheism is the denial of God or the gods and that it is the opposite of theism, a system of belief that affirms the reality of God and seeks to demonstrate his existence, is inadequate in a number of ways.

jamesid29:
Near1:
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10....&result=11
"A belief in the non-existence of a God or gods, or (more broadly) an absence of belief in their existence."
(Both Oxford references led to the same place.)
Again here sir, your link does not pan out.

Oxford references is not the same as "The oxford companion to philosophy" or "oxford dictionary of philosophy". This two are specific dictionaries, while oxford references is an all purpose site with references from a wide variety of oxford publication.
Yes, this is an error on Near1's part.

jamesid29:

Below is the reference by "The oxford companion to philosophy" and link
atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist.... ...
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199264797.001.0001/acref-9780199264797-e-166?rskey=3OGKCc&result=166
I'd have to see the full entry, but we'll accept your claim as valid for that article in the companion pending further investigation of the source. However, the companion is not a dictionary and doesn't try to be. My experience with Oxford Companion books is that they're more like a reader's anthology than a dictionary. So this ultimately isn't legitimate support for your claim.

jamesid29:

And a quick Google search for a definition from Oxford References itself gives the below definition:

The theory or belief that God does not exist. The word comes (in the late 16th century, via French) from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god'.
below are the links:
https:///3EqCtjp or you can go directly to the google link.: https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095431374#:~:text=The%20theory%20or%20belief%20that,'%20%2B%20theos%20'god'.
This is similar to what general-purpose dictionaries present and isn't really more than a quick and dirty reference for word definitions. The quote you gave constitutes the entirety of that reference. On the other hand, Oxford Reference also does quote Oxford's "The Dictionary Of Atheism" which does support the lack of belief definition which Near1 quoted. So that's one that does and one that doesn't.

jamesid29:

Although I should also mention that the oxford dictionary of philosophy(Simon Blackburn) in it's 3rd edition does include "lack of belief" alongside the standard definition as a it's entry.
https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=Mno8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PR5&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false [ page 36]
So that's another in the lack of belief column.

jamesid29:
Near1:
I only found that a couple references on your list included a definition which supported your assertion. I could not check several. Perhaps you would be so kind as to double check your own assertion and provide the quotes and links required to support your assertion, if in fact you found them somewhere even within the four above-listed references (I would assume a wide range of opinions are represented within each work cited).
I'm not sure we're looking at the same references sir.
And also I'm not sure how you missed the first entry on my post(Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy). since it's one of the most fully fledged piece on the subject with lots of references. And also one of the most cited online encyclopedias of philosophy.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/
I've already discussed the problem with the Stanford entry, but since the Stanford entry does mention Antony Flew's advocacy of the lack of belief definition, so that's another strike against your claim.

So totaling things up:

Supports lack definition: 5

Doesn't support lack defn: 1 (Oxford Reference's primary entry for atheism)

Undetermined: 5 (ismbook actually says active disbelief, which could fall both ways, but it is counted as undetermined for now.)

So even if all 5 undetermined references went your way, at best, half don't reference lack of belief. If those examined are typical, then most actually do reference lack of belief.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Why I Believe Atheists Are Not Good People by Tamaratonye5(f): 5:14pm On Oct 29, 2021
jamesid29:

Turns out that the definition of atheism as "lack of belief in god(s)" is almost non existent in the field of philosophy itself.
What purpose would it serve in modern philosophy? If it didn't appear 12th - 19th century European philosophy, that may have been because the Christian god was taken for granted - indeed, had to be taken for granted, because questioning his existence was subject to punishment ranging from social disapprobation to public execution. In the definition you cite, there is a nod to other religions (gods) that would not have occurred to a European philosopher in the 1700's - they were all more theologians than philosophers: their categorization of thought-systems was quite different from those of the ancient Greeks, their Asians counterparts and modern ethicists. The god(s) thing is an afterthought; none besides Jehovah and his two alter egos is seriously considered as objects of faith between 400AD and 1900AD.

jamesid29:

And it's what worth noting that the standard definition in this dictionaries/encyclopedias are written by atheist philosophers themselves.
How do you know this? And why is it relevant?

jamesid29:

So amongst the vast majorities dictionaries of philosophy and within philosophical discourse itself, the standard definition is used.
Is this accurate? I don't think philosophical reference books do stop at that skimpy definition. For instance, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The purpose of this entry is to explore how atheism and agnosticism are related to theism and, more importantly, to each other. This requires examining the surprisingly contentious issue of how best to define the terms “atheism” and “agnosticism”. Settling this issue, at least for the purposes of this entry, will set the stage for discussing an important distinction between global atheism and local atheism, which in turn will be helpful for distinguishing different forms of agnosticism.

It goes on to explore seven main aspects of the question in detail. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy has a short entry, by William Clifford, that reads, in part:

Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods

So he's expressly putting atheism in opposition to one other belief, and not in any larger context. If theism is referred-to as a "positive state", that reveals a fundamental bias - one that was prevalent in Eurocentric philosophy of the 19th and early 20th century. It places one single belief at the center of a world-view which is not further elaborated. But the seeds of dissent were present in the late 19th, and non-, as well as anti-religious thought surged in the second half of the 20th century. Euro-phil is liberated from the Christian doctrine by Bertrand Russell and his cohort, c 1930.

One idea does not make a philosophy. A belief in gods, ghosts, Manifest Destiny, Justice, Fate, the Unity of all Things, dark matter or the Rules of Acquisition, is but one aspect of a world view, a basis for one's attitude to life, other life forms, the physical world, moral standards, social organization and the drafting of laws. A conscientious philosopher would not regard either the lack of belief or the denial - even the vehement denial - of a single proposition as an end in itself, but proceed to explore the conceptual worlds to which that proposition logically gives rise. Of course, in the past century and a half, quite a few philosophers have done so.

jamesid29:

That I think begs the question why the vast majority of people on the internet and atheist activists still chose to insist that atheism is simply " the lack of belief in god(s)"? A definition that's almost none existent in academia itself.
Do most of the people you know, in cyberspace or walking life, describe their own conviction about anything in academic terms? I suspect most atheists describe themselves that way, because they have, at some point, broken with a religious dogma, but not troubled to build an entire philosophy of their own.

I'm not sure what an atheist activist is. I think most are referring to a particular political issue, rather than a fully formed world-view. They're limiting their definition to a specific issue or context. Is Hitchens an activist? Okay, he was a bit smug and off-putting, poor guy. Russell and Huxley, I found quite engaging. Maybe it's the advantage of having a very class English at the tip of their pens. There are several types - flavours?, yes - of Western atheism in the early 21st century, but the major challenge to all of them is the aggressive resurgence of state religion. If atheists are too loud and shrill, it's because they're shouting back at a hurricane.

2 Likes

Religion / Re: Why I Believe Atheists Are Not Good People by Tamaratonye5(f): 1:17pm On Oct 29, 2021
jamesid29:

Yeah. So if the the question of the existence/inexistence of the divine falls under the field of philosophy, would you agree that the adequate definition of atheism should come from from the field of philosophy itself?
Are you aware that philosophers don't have a patent on the definition of atheism?

2 Likes

Religion / Re: Welcome To NL Where You Get To See 80% Of Theist And Philosophers In Nigeria?lol by Tamaratonye5(f): 11:28am On May 19, 2021
.
Religion / Re: How Did God Make Himself by Tamaratonye5(f): 2:05pm On Nov 26, 2020
Martian, Bacteriologist, LordTheus et Al

I must commend you guys, I have become rather weary of back and forth exchanges with theists.

The impenetrable vague nature of theist notion is identical only to the implausibility in their baffling comprehension of reality and activities which even they confess to be beyond mere human knowledge

NOT ONCE has Dtruthspeaker, Jesusjnr2020, Maximus69 and the rest of their squad of misfit apologists ever displayed a desire to proffer an intelligent mature response to any question positioned to them about their faith. Rather than solve easy questions or make clear their claims, like all excellent instructors have to, they reply with indignation to the dearth of submissive recognition to their statements which they dogmatically hold as totally inerrant or as sacred capitalised gnostic idealisations beyond query or explanation.

All of them react with less dignity than many tough and red-necked wharfies I actually have labored with. The responses of this theistic bunch endure no resemblance to the quiet fact of each person assured inside the assurance in their very own religious enlightenment. Instead they rant and rail like witchdoctors vainly seeking to impose their dubious strength and questionable know-how.

For more than thirty years I even have seen the same arguments and indignation paraded and stupidly defended by way of wave after wave of intransigent unintelligent would be cliches. On the alternative hand I actually have had the pleasure of engaging with a few exceptional theists who I nevertheless maintain in excessive regard, who have quietly and intelligently explained and demonstrated the power in their religion and who on the same time acknowledged their doubts and uncertainties, but they may be lamentably few in number.

So with that to enjoy behind me, and due to the fact I even have given up hope of ever rescuing my brother from the despicable christian brethren cult who've claimed him, I find it more and more unrewarding or maybe a laugh to have interactions with people like this tag crew bunch who seek to wrestle and rage towards common sense and understanding and who only debate to please their pious vanity and shore up comforts of their saintly lack of knowledge

I’m reminded of the quote, I accept as true with from Mark Twain: “Never wrestle a pig, you’ll best get dirty, and the pig might enjoy it.”

5 Likes

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 11:50pm On Nov 10, 2020
Anti-spambot is confusing him/her/itself today. Smh
Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 9:45pm On Nov 10, 2020
Dtruthspeaker:


Thank you for Running Back to your Seat, it is appreciated That You Yourself Know That You Know Too Little About Evidence and that you are Truly Not Worthy To Pronounce on it.

That Same Lack of Knowledge, still Swallows You Up Here, For you still do not know whether I have pleaded Evidence or Not!

So please take your seat and let the True Judges of Evidence Speak About Evidence, while you listen with your legs crossed!


Tamaratonye5:
I am happy for others here to make their minds up if my posts suggest your childish gibberish has any validity, in the meantime, research evidence within the dictionary and explain how your quoted claim about spirits, is evidenced within the infantile and irrelevant rhetoric you attached.

Death may be a natural phenomena, nothing we understand about it evidences spirits. It’s also now clear you don’t know what objective means.

Well, at least Anty Tamara knows English (the written word). The actual fact that I'm articulate could be a step towards my credibility…

As for you, capitals here and there - a mishmash of non-sense… rotflmao - I'm pretty confident, that is, I'm 500 percent confident that I incorporate a better grip of what empirical and demonstrable evidence is - the varied levels required for convincing (determined by the claim itself), etc. Hell, I’m pretty sure my dog incorporates a better grip of what constitutes evidence than your posts suggest you have.

…and that poor fucking dog has been dead for 15 years.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 7:58pm On Nov 10, 2020
For your edification, Dtruthspeaker - there are many types of evidence. However, ALL evidence is accepted or rejected based on its' appropriate level. Guess which of the following your halfwit assertions ticked:

HIGH: High confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.

MEDIUM: Moderate confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research may change our confidence in the estimate of effect, and may change the estimate.

LOW: Low confidence that the evidence reflects the true effect. Further research is very likely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect, and likely to change the estimate.

INSUFFICIENT: Evidence is either unavailable, or does not permit a conclusion.

Allow me to clue you in: there is absolutely nothing you have written here that has risen above the INSUFFICIENT category. You can prove me wrong though, by presenting proper EVIDENCE for your numerous claims.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 7:04pm On Nov 10, 2020
The objective proof is
1) when doctors say "he's gone" or "stay with us" or "he's back with us" and everyone who has been around dead or dying people know this is True!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
Can Dtruthspeaker offer no objective evidence for this claim?? Tsk, tsk, tsk

You're just trying to reverse the burden of proof - a dishonest debating tactic you keep employing whenever you're out-thought and outgunned.

Your obfuscation of the meaning of "evidence" is only a way for you to run away, as you always do, from your claims like a whipped pussy lol. No rational person here is fooled by your trolling evasion. Though they may find your random capital letters, and remedial grammar a bit baffling.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 2:05pm On Nov 10, 2020
Dtruthspeaker:
All the shit you say is hinged on what you know Evidence is Vs. what I know, what Evidence to be.
Another unevidenced claim, with more random capital letters, smh. You're embarrassing yourself lol.

Evidence
noun
1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Fact
noun
1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

You have offered none of the above to support your assertion about spirits. Just asserted that a known phenomenon, death, and medical terminology indicates your assertion to be valid. It’s not evidence for your claim, and as is usually the case you refuse to elucidate rationally your assertion, and resort to irrelevant non sequiturs and ad hominems.

Dtruthspeaker:
So present your knowledge of Evidence here,.what Evidence is?
It’s perfectly adequately defined in any dictionary dear, and since you have not presented anything beyond bare assertion, there's nothing to look at. So again nobody is falling for this asinine evasion. Does one even remember what your claim was all through your irrelevant thrashing about?

Dtruthspeaker:
When this is settled, then you can rightfully dispose one way or the other, the evidence I have given in this case.
It’s settled by an easy definition, and you've presented no evidence, just bare claims, so sadly your bluster isn’t going to fool anyone, junior.

The objective proof is
1) when doctors say "he's gone" or "stay with us" or "he's back with us" and everyone who has been around dead or dying people know this is True!
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
| | | | |
Ring any bells? If you think that there's any evidence in there then please point to it?

What you’ve offered there's a subjective opinion. If it were an objective fact there’d be a world scientific consensus to validate it. Since what you’re describing could be a phenomenon, as are medical events that cause the brain to begin dying from oxygen deprivation. None of that's objective evidence for anything supernatural, why would it be?

It’s infantile rhetoric, and also the fact you seem to genuinely think any of that's evidence for the claim says it all really. I’m embarrassed for you lol. Poor guy.

Dtruthspeaker:
For You Must Know What Evidence is, For You To Know What Is Not Evidence!
What a pithy little tautological piece of nonsense. Again evidence is defined in any dictionary, I suggest you look it up. Then present some…

Dtruthspeaker:
And of course this is the first time That You Realised That You Did Not Know What Evidence Truly Meant!
(Yawning) Another unevidenced claim. Unbelievable grin

I am happy for others here to make their minds up if my posts suggest your childish gibberish has any validity, in the meantime, research evidence within the dictionary and explain how your quoted claim about spirits, is evidenced within the infantile and irrelevant rhetoric you attached.

Death may be a natural phenomena, nothing we understand about it evidences spirits. It’s also now clear you don’t know what objective means.

Well, at least Anty Tamara knows English (the written word). The actual fact that I'm articulate could be a step towards my credibility…

As for you, capitals here and there - a mishmash of non-sense… rotflmao - I'm pretty confident, that is, I'm 500 percent confident that I incorporate a better grip of what empirical and demonstrable evidence is - the varied levels required for convincing (determined by the claim itself), etc. Hell, I’m pretty sure my dog incorporates a better grip of what constitutes evidence than your posts suggest you have.

…and that poor fucking dog has been dead for 15 years.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 9:04am On Nov 10, 2020
Dtruthspeaker:
Anty Tamara, between you and I, you know Nothing About Evidence, the Nature of Evidence and the Law of Evidence, How, Evidence is Obtained, The Types of Evidence that Exist etc
Another tedious list of subjective unevidenced assertions, littered with random capital letters, pretty ironic as well, under the circumstances

Dtruthspeaker:
So, You Do Not know what Evidence Is and How it Works and therefore you are not in a position to contend with me on Evidence.
Is your name, by any chance, Donald Trump lol?

You have offered no evidence, none, nada, zilch, so there's nothing to contend with. Though if you truly believe the nonsense you've posted on this thread is anything but pitiful naked assertions and vapid ad hominem, then I feel embarrassed for you.

Dtruthspeaker:
(Now folks, do you know the Tamaratonye style of argument? she shall divert from the main issue and move into the streams of the main issue like a bull shark leaves the ocean to go into rivers).
You've truly outdone yourself here lmao. Just when I thought you couldn't get any worse.

Do tell us Dtruthspeaker, how is asking you to provide evidence for your endless subjective assertions, distracting from them? Again, this is a pretty ironic claim, given that's your third paragraph that has nothing to do with the topic, and just lists more unevidenced assertions and puerile ad hominem. I also didn't make any argument, I only asked you to evidence your claims. So your hysterical ad hominem speaks for itself lol.

Dtruthspeaker:
The only thing of interest to me here is your knowledge of Evidence, bring it that we may Examine (I know say you go dodge am mmh)
Have I made any claims here? (Looking from left to right) I don't think so. The claims have all been yours, and that imbecillic red herring of a post is fooling no reasonable individual here. If it wasn't before, it's much clearer now that you have NO EVIDENCE to present for your beliefs in archaic superstitions.

Seriously man, seek help. Quite frankly, and I don't mean this to be an ad hominem, your posts often make you come accross as dim-witted, or like an illiterate. I don't claim to be an expert in epistemology but good grief, you have never attempted to offer proper evidence for your beliefs in these kind of discussions. The random capital letters are hilarious and embarrassing in equal measure.

Can you offer any compelling evidence for your deity at all? I can't dumb it down any more than that unfortunately.

2 Likes

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 6:13am On Nov 10, 2020
Image123:


The human being is a tripartite being unlike other animals and living things. It's not necessarily what makes us greater but it makes us in the image of God, triune. Every human being is made up of spirit, soul and body.
Like three circles or like in geography, the earth has an inner core/circle in the deepest part, then the outer core before coming to the earth surface that we all see. In similar vein, the spirit of man is the innermost, followed by the soul. The body is the outside physically seen part. The body is more prevalent in the physical realm and i guess you are already at a disadvantage asking for purely physical objective proofs of another realm. Let's see what can be done though not promising much. So far so bad, what part is confusing in the explanation?
We have examined this planet earth and through many disciplines are able to identify and study the various layers on this planet. If someone demands proof that there's an inner core, it will be proven by the suitable scientists, with data and facts. Those results were determined by observation, the layers were revealed as science progressed.

You cannot prove in any way this triple layer human proposition. You're not working with facts and data.

Religion / Re: Answers About God From A Famous Ex-atheist With 50yrs Experience Of Arguments by Tamaratonye5(f): 6:02am On Nov 10, 2020
DrLiveLogic:
Isn't it ad-hominem.
No, since dementia (or death) would have a bearing on the ability one has to produce cogent rational arguments.

DrLiveLogic:
This time try looking into the validity of his points rather than the character.
Yet you were the one to appeal to authority by invoking his name. Besides bare assertions about his ability(ies), nothing of substance has been produced here.

DrLiveLogic:
Or well, just don't worry, I feel like I already know how this will end.
Worry? Me? Why?

It's your belief my atheism contains an inherrent risk, obviously I don't believe that, so worrying wouldn't make sense, would it?

DrLiveLogic:
Maybe you're not ready yet so I'll just keep hoping the best for you and try my luck some other time.
Read this: You have never, can not, and probably won't ever, demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, readiness is just another excuse to pretend you have possession of some hidden esoteric proof but it's clear by now that you don't lol.

DrLiveLogic:
This word is in common use in math and the sciences generally. When we use it, we mean something is marked by a defining principle, rule or law.
Then you shouldn't have any trouble telling me if it's binary or not. You said you've been using it; clearly you must know.

So please, attend to this:
Tamaratonye5:
[1] Is ordered a binary variable? Like True/False? If so can you give an example of something that is not ordered?

[2] If ordered isn't a binary property: what exactly are you comparing the universe against, to see that it is ordered?

DrLiveLogic:
Try Merriam-Webster here.
Ordered
Smh. I know what ordered means, thank you very much

You don't seem to grasp my question. In simple terms, what number of universes were in your test group to work out that this universe is "ordered"?

OR is it your subjective opinion supported only 1 example? How does one know the other kind of universe is even possible? How does an ordered universe evidence a deity?

You’re simply starting along with your belief, then fitting what you observe around that belief. If you only ever look to verify one belief, then that confirmation is what such closed minded bias will always find.

DrLiveLogic:
The right question is: can we recognise any rule or law defining the working of the universe?, which the identified laws of physics have already answered.
Those scientific explanations are human creations, created to know the workings of the universe. Again how are you claiming they represent evidence for your deity? Don’t forget your own superstition relies on a creation myth that's at odds with much of what science has discovered about the formation of our universe and scheme, and therefore the diversity of life on this planet. So you claiming those scientific discoveries evidence that deity is hilarious. Also you deny known scientific facts like species evolution, once they contradict your beliefs, so again the irony is palpable.

2 Likes

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 5:27am On Nov 10, 2020
Dtruthspeaker:


The objective proof is
1) when doctors say "he's gone" or "stay with us" or "he's back with us" and everyone who has been around dead or dying people know this is True!
Pure nonsense, another bare assertion from you in the pretence it's evidence.

Dtruthspeaker:

2). when dead, "our departed".. then when a baby is born "we say our child has arrived" or "Edon come oh"
Ah, I see. So trains are spirits then? That has to be dumbest piece of rhetoric you have posted on this website yet.

Dtruthspeaker:
But shall Reed ever Agree to Universal Natural Truths?
Shall Dtruthspeaker ever grasp rudimentary grammar and sentence construction?

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

Dtruthspeaker:
Never, Nothing proving the Truth of God shall stand in his eyes, True or Not!
You, or any other believer and/or theist, would have to offer some shred of evidence first, and that hasn't happened. As we can see from your vapid rhetoric here again, you don't even know what evidence is, clearly, proof is mathematics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dtruthspeaker:
FOR IF IT WAS NOT TRUE, YOU WOULD HAVE HAPPILY PROVIDED THE COUNTER AS YOU HAVE USUALLY DONE, RIGHT HERE AND RIGHT NOW
They call this argumentum ad ignorantiam. It does not work that way. You cannot disprove an untestable claim, and the god claim falls into the untestable category.

Allow me to illustrate your folly now:

I claim that in the heart of the sun is a sphere packed with beer and hot babes. Can you disprove this? I'm guessing no

My question to you: Simply because you cannot disprove my claim, does that make my claim valid?

Dtruthspeaker:
because you do not have the answer
Your unevidenced archaic superstition needs no counter argument, and your bare assertions are not evidence. I gave up reading the rest of your vapid verbiage. Is your shift key broken? What's with the random capital letters?

As for truth, that's established with objective evidence, and despite your empty hyperbole, you have yet to offer any.

1 Like

Religion / Re: Does God Really Exist? by Tamaratonye5(f): 4:56am On Nov 10, 2020
DivineDynamics:
This has been the question many people have been asking in ages.
Ages 0-4
Ages 5-12
Ages 13-17
Ages 18-25
Ages 26-39
Ages 40-64
Ages 65-90

DivineDynamics:
To many people, [there is no evidence for] God. does not exist.
Fixed

DivineDynamics:
Neither was He the One that created the universe nor human beings.
You tied the previous sentence together with this one using the word "neither". Trying to one up your shadow, hmm?

NO demonstrable evidence [1] A god, [2] deity sex as in he [3] creates ...

The universe exists, human beings exist. Good observations.

DivineDynamics:
Many said there was no proof or empirical evidence that God exists.
One hundred percent true. And these many have asked for this standard of evidence. Others are happy believing in faith and then telling everyone what they know lol

DivineDynamics:
There is no doubt that the existence of God will remain a controversy till eternity.
Come on now DivineDynamics lol. This is not true at all embarassed. Perhaps in your mind only. There may one day be demonstrable evidence for god deity ideas - just up until now there is none - since the evolution of Earth and humankind.

DivineDynamics:
Many religions try to bring forward the assertion that God lives and that He indeed created the world and all the things in it.
I can't think of many religions that "survive and get money from people" without this deity being of some sort, you know

And not all credit said deity with creation afterall, so perhaps, many is appropriate smiley

DivineDynamics:
Some people are disillusioned about the problems on earth.
And some are very optimistic and quite pleased with how far humankind has are available caring for other humans and advancing medicine, foods, technology, communication (incl languages), acceptance of diversity, lower crime rates … oh wow I could last and on…

These super dis-illusioned people should get entangled in maybe one small thing to boost the globe or their local area. Even giving to a bank, volunteering at an old folks home OR animal shelter… oh wow - there's lots an individual can do, you know

DivineDynamics:
Some could not accept that a supreme God exists in the midst of the travails they find themselves.
Actually - it’s never been demonstrably evidenced that a supreme God exists not to mention within the midst of "travails", so, quite frankly, none should "accept" this position

However - you may say "some with faith believe a supreme god exists amongst travails" (something like that)

DivineDynamics:
I believe that indeed God exists. The empirical proof is my very existence.
Sorry DivineDynamics, but the credit for your existence should (realistically) be visiting your dear mom and pop - the sperm and egg donor… think basic sexual reproductive education.

DivineDynamics:
It is a spirit thing and the understanding lies entirely in spirit.
See that's a faith statement. No empirical evidence for this "spirit" you speak about …
Religion / Re: Trump Defeat A Proof Christian God Is Fake? by Tamaratonye5(f): 3:15pm On Nov 08, 2020
Why do you pluralise the word "stuff", SamJed?

SamJed:
However, note that anything can happen between now and the inaugration day.
Not even remotely true. Trump and his camp have lost. What will happen is Biden will be the next president.

SamJed:
Just like a football match, if the referee has not blown the whistle, any and everything can still happen.
A very poor analogy because [1] Football, like the US laws on elections, is very explicit and doesn't allow for "anything to happen", and [2] As far as this presidential election is concerned, the refs whistle has blown full time, and it's over. Trump and his supporters can sulk and throw as many tantrums as they want, they lost, end of…
Religion / Re: Trump Defeat A Proof Christian God Is Fake? by Tamaratonye5(f): 3:08pm On Nov 08, 2020
Shortyy:
You people will just open mouth waah.
Considering your subsequent assertions, I have to say, this is just irony overload. Well done.

Shortyy:
God is not human OK?
Straw man fallacy, as GreatResearcher never stated otherwise. And while we're at it, can you demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity?

Shortyy:
His ways are mysterious
Unevidenced and inexplicable. Priceless. The real mystery here is how you think this is a compelling argument for a deity.

Shortyy:
Sometimes he doesn't give you what you want but has better plans for you
Show me the discernible difference between what you just wrote here and blind luck. With evidence, of course.

Shortyy:
You just need to trust and have faith in him
With faith, you can pretty much believe anything. It certainly is no more compelling a reason to believe one deity over any other, so that's another own goal from you I'm afraid.
Religion / Re: Trump Defeat A Proof Christian God Is Fake? by Tamaratonye5(f): 3:07pm On Nov 08, 2020
Double post
Religion / Re: Trump Defeat A Proof Christian God Is Fake? by Tamaratonye5(f): 2:58pm On Nov 08, 2020
GreatResearcher:
They way Christians both in Nigeria and other countries were going about this US election, even if Trump was not made to win, things would have turned around for his favour.
But this just goes to prove that God is fake.
I think Biden is more overtly religious than Trump. Besides, since when has the failure of the Christian deity to do what Christians want ever dented Christians' beliefs?

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (of 5 pages)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 153
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.