₦airaland Forum

HellVictorinho3:
Theists consider theism as a solution to problems.


But the problems remain in the presence of theism.





What's the essence of theism?



Dtruthspeaker,TenQ, every other theist on Earth.

I can't speak for every THEIST as we have no common ground.

As a Christian however I can tell you that (it doesn't matter if you know, disbelive, reject or lack a belief)
1. God created the universe for Himself as a kind of garden
2. Of all creatures God made, he made humans as chief
3. The earth is an examination field where humans choose either to be subject in love to their Creator or choose to be independent.
4. Unfortunately all of us including Christians are corrupted by the virus of sin the lead to disconnection from God
5. God gave a second chance for us through the shedding of blood as an atonement for our sin.
6. My obligation is to accept God's solution for my justification with thanksgiving and appreciation for His GIFT of eternal life with Him
7. My duty thus consist of
a. Loving others as myself
b. Preaching of God's love and gift so that others can receive God's free GIFT of salvation
c. Serving Believers with my Spiritual Gifts and Talents so that all can grow up in Faith, Purity and Knowledge to serve God through the brethren. My duty is to be done in Love, Purity and Sincerity
8. At the end of our examination, I will be graded according to how faithfully I have done my duty in making my neighbor blessed.
I will also live the rest of my eternity with the Creator as a Son!

This is a summary!
I am willing to entertain any questions

LordReed:
Wrong. Science doesn't say the universe has a beginning.

Can you define the universe?
[color=white]Is the universe the same as the gravitational singularity that inflated to form space, time and matter as we know it?
[/color]

LordReed:
Wrong. Agnosticism is a position about knowledge not belief.

You just showed an example by not attempting to understand what you have rejected yet relishing the fact that your claim of lack of belief is the most intelligent response to whether you believe that hair on people have any benefit.

Agnostism is a position that claims that knowing is impossible!

Therefore your choice is based on not knowing.

Does not knowing make your position TRUE?

LordReed:
You are starting to lose it.

You are trying trick questions now because your position is just full of self deceit. I attempted to define ito but you said I was wrong but instead of you to actual define ito you thought you could trap me. One cannot have beliefs in what one doesn't know however that lack of knowledge came about. Your trap fails. Lack of belief is not disbelief. Stop dribbling your own shadow.

You didn't get my point.

The fact that you claimed "lack of belief" with the simple question was a result of a WILLING IGNORANCE! You chose to take a position without finding out to the limit of opportunities available to you.

The word "Ito" simply means hair (the modern replacement for it is irun). It wasn't a trick question, it was a question to show that
1. A person can choose the nonsensical position in not being interested in knowing. In that case, willing ignorance seem like a bliss.
2. An effort to ask questions or seek for a knowing will ultimately lead to an intelligent response and conclusion.
In this respect, it is not important if the subject agrees or disagrees with the question. The important thing is that he took a rational decision.
3. Either way the question was answered, it is still a belief based on your conviction.

However, the option of sitting on the fence without any attempt to know is a reckless and dumb position one can take.

LordReed:
I lack belief of the ito since I don't know what it is.

That is nonsensical! It's like basing your "lack of belief" on ignorance and not on any sensible judgement.

The sensible question you should have asked is: what is Ito?

Your refusal to KNOW actually doesn't change anything about the question asked.

It is the explanation that a rational man will use as a basis of Belief or Disbelief.

What if I ask you another question:

Do you believe "hairs" has any function on humans?

Buliwyf:
You are obviously an odious buffoon. The post wasn't about me but the question was posed to you like a gentleman just to hear what you will say and you replied like a gentleman because you thought you had a point. Then after like 6 or 7 back and forth comments between you and I that you realized you didn't know what to add anymore since you can't prove your claims just like you can't prove your god, you decided it was better to attack my personality instead.

You are a fool. A worst fool I am yet to meet.

Thank you!
Are you done?

Buliwyf:
We don't know how the universe will end exactly or if it will actually ever do so. It is just speculations based on what we can predict with our limited understanding of physics. Like I said some belief in a recurring big bang. That is an expansion like we are having now and a subsequent contraction back to the state before the Big Bang. Others believe other things. That's why they usually qualify it with the words "as we know it". There are some things we may never know. The universe as we know it may end but it says nothing of what form it will take after or what happens beyond the predictive powers of our current scientific models.

It doesn't matter anyway since we know the universe exists and the earth is in it. No one is arguing about the existence of the universe. The same cannot be said for your god whose only proof of existence is the ridiculous untestable claims of his believers. Which by all sense is no more plausible than the proof of the existence of spider-man and superman.

You don't know!?

What does science say about the entropy of the universe. Is it constant, decreasing or increasing?

Buliwyf:
Lol. This guy has lost his mind after being force fed logic. You were trying to act like you were smart before until you realize you couldn't refute my arguments and now you have started using ad hominem to cloud your foolishness instead of refuting logically.

Let me make it clear because it's obvious you lack comprehension skills and intelligence. The guy is opposing your religion and not spiderman because your god is not different from spiderman but you have elevated it to new heights of foolishness and have started making political discussions about it and setting laws because of it. If you treated your religion the same way people who love comic book characters treat theirs, you won't be here right now chewing cod, lost for words and being petulant.

It doesn't take long for these Christian clowns to lose their mind and start drooling when they can't come up with sound responses. Poor thing. I feel sorry for you. Lol

You didn't make any argument. You came in splashing about like a drowning orangutan. That post wasn't referring to you. It was a response to someone else based on the conversations we've had.

If you had come to defend him, then started from where the conversation led to my comment to him

LordReed:
Urine? Do you mean ingesting it? I believe it might provide marginal usefulness when ingested but too marginal to be truly useful. If you mean just its expulsion from the body then yes I believe it has a lot of functionality for humans.

No!
It's not urine.
Urine is ìtọ̀
Saliva is itọ́
I am asking about "Ito" sounds like (Omi=water) in pronunciation. It's actually an old Yoruba word (depreciated).

So, here is the question again properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

Buliwyf:
Trying to equate your religion to Santa or SuperMan and using the exclusive opposition to yours alone as a crutch to assert the truth of your religion is dishonest at best.
Everyone knows the aforementioned are make-believe. Nobody has started a making assertions about the afterlife solely on comic book characters or Santa. No one has asked for political laws to be drafted to suit the belief in Santa. No one has tried to deny others right to life and happiness based on what they think Santa wants for the world. The fact that you think that comparison is logical is laughable.

Even though I wasn't referring to you, your coming in shows a psychopathic problem that some people have when they hear about the Name of whom they have rejected.

Stay in your lane as you are free to choose to believe ANYTHING you want. The only thing is you are bound by the consequence of your action. It is a universal law!

LordReed:
Because that is how beliefs work. Beliefs do not require explicit knowledge in other to be formed. People believe all sorts of things they either have no knowledge or very poor knowledge of.

A Belief is a mental position or judgement people make when they have an incomplete information to fully KNOW! The mental position may be taken from logical/rational or emotional perspective. There are also varying degrees to which the logical/rational or emotional arguments is pursued.

This means that ALL forms of agnostism is primarily a BELIEF!

A belief is not necessarily a faulty premise on which judgement is made because in reality manytimes we make decisions where the outcome is not GUARANTEED.
Example:
I take a flight believing that the aeroplane will not crash mid-flight.

Crystyano:
Anything with a beginning can't be ever-existing

Of course. Anything that has a beginning or an end cannot be eternal.

Buliwyf:
Nope. It's scientifically accepted that the universe as we know it began something like 13.8 billion years ago. That is done by extrapolating from our current position and the rate of expansion of the universe. It says nothing about the Big Bang or the state of the universe before the Big Bang. In fact there are some who actually think that it is not just one bang but a recurring series of expansions and contractions. Anything before the Big bang cannot be known with our current knowledge of physics. And no scientist worth his onions can claim for a fact he/she knows.

So yeah the universe is no different from your god. Because we don't know it's cause or it's actual beginning. But it is even better than your god if only for the mere fact that we can see it, trace and prove it's existence.

By the way, why do you think the universe or any creator should not be subject to the laws of physics? Where is it stated that is a rule? Oh I remember you came to that conclusion all by yourself based on dogma and not with any proof. Just like your religion.

Will the Universe as we know it remain forever?

Buliwyf:
Why can you not believe the universe created itself when you obviously believe that the creator who supposedly created it was not created himself?
Why can't the same apply to all forms of life in this universe. Perhaps being is just the default. We are just expressions in the great void that is the nothingness that actually existed before we the expressions sprung forth.

I am not saying what I wrote just now is actually the fact. I am saying it is as plausible as any religious belief.

It is scientifically accepted that the universe has a beginning about 13.8billion years.
It is scientifically accepted that the universe with end through the dissipation of its energy.

The universe cannot logically create itself.Why?
It needs to be a timeless constant entity.
It should not be subject to the laws of physics

fregeneh:
Like I said earlier on I haven't been to the north I don't have the detail of what is going on there,maybe you should give me the detail.

The plain truth is that, the Fulani bandits have unleased their attrocities on the North even more than they have done in the south.
The northern leaders pretended the southerners were overreacting until the same woe overtook them

LordReed:
It's not any kind of stalemate or at least the stubbornness is from you. I already attached a screenshot of the definition of agnostic-theist in a previous response but you ignored it because you are dead set on proving your error as right.

I think I see your point now. I have defined agnostic theist from a Christian point of view and that would be a narrow definition.
In other words, Just as agnostic-atheist is defined from the point of view of unbelieve, agnostic-theist are defined in terms of belief.

Even though I agree with you on this, I think the view possesses an inherent contradiction and illogicality irrespective of how we choose to define agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist.

How can one believe or disbelieve that which is impossible to know?

I guess everything is not on the sensibility of the position but the emotional disposition. The human mind is a powerful engine.

LordReed:
See the attached screenshot.

Rather than deal with the obvious, can see an adoption of a new definition here by the owners of the language. I admit that language vocabularies grow with time. Even the distinction of the definition of who is MALE and FEMALE is now blurred now.

LordReed:
You are the one who is wrong. It is exactly because I didn't know what akokuja is that I lack belief belief in it. I actually searched for the word and nothing came up. How can I have a believe in what I don't know? The correct answer is I lack belief it. I don't even believe you are correct that it means myself. Post a link to evidence that it means what you say it means.

Akukuja actually means nothing: it was an "invention". I should have used one that exists to illustrate my point

Here is one - it's old Yoruba word, "Ito" pronounced like (ata- pepper) (sounds musically like "jingle" in the Christmas song jingle bells). I've given you enough hint

So, here is the question properly put
Do you believe "Ito" has any function on humans?

LordReed:
Not going answer your question until you post a screenshot of the meaning of agnostic theist. When you do we can discuss if the meaning you posted is wrong or not.

Then you are forcing a stubborn stalemate. Can you find me a dictionary that has the word agnostic-theist

LordReed:
LoL! I see your problem now. The definition of atheism as lack of belief is not exclusive of other forms of atheism, rather is inclusive of all forms of atheism. There are atheists who actively disbelieve in all gods, I am not one therefore the most basic description of what makes I and these other types of atheists is our shared lack of belief. So there's nothing like I am afraid of using those words. If lack of belief is calculated to do anything it is to make sure all forms of atheism are captured.

Of course something that cannot reason will lack belief, it couldn't hold belief in the first place. That doesn't remotely equate such incapable things with humans who have no belief in a god because the humans can have beliefs.

A lack of belief doesn't only stem from lack of cognition. It is like saying the only way an organism can ingest food is through a mouth while completely ignoring organisms that ingest food via means other than mouths.

I think you are still bent on forcefully using the phrase "lack of a belief" rather than the logical antonyms of belief such as Unbelief, Disbelief, Doubt.

If theism is defined as a belief in a deity,
Atheism should be properly defined as Unbelief, Disbelief or Doubt in any deity.

The phrase "lack of a belief" isn't the antonym for belief.

LordReed:
I lack belief in akokuja.

Wrong answer.
How can you claim a disbelief on something you don't even have an idea about.

You should have asked the simple question: what is akokuja?

What if I told you that akokuja is an ancient Sumerian word meaning "myself"?

Do you truely disbelief in Yourself?

HellVictorinho3:
I think LordReed has stated enough about this.

It was a YES or NO question!

fregeneh:
We talking about south here sir.

Isn't it possible that the same scam of Fulani bandit menace is being perpetuated in the North!?
All may just be a propaganda to smear the name of the Fulani!

Myer:
Apparently I'm the only one who seems to be doing the thinking here.

In defending your argument you seem to have lost your appreciation of definitions.

Really!?
Honestly I don't understand you?

LordReed:
I want you to post a screenshot of the definition of agnostic theist just like you did for agnostic.

That is a compound word. I am not sure any English dictionary describes an agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist. What we have are people's description of it. I can easily post the dictionary definition of atheism,theism and agnostism but not agnostic-theist or agnostic-atheist

I use a Webster's English Dictionary (nothing like that)

How wrong is my definition:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

LordReed:
How come you aren't showing me a screenshot for the definition of agnostic theist?

Is my definition wrong?
If it is wrong, how?

TenQ:
Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

Myer:
I expected this base and unintelligent response.
But I decided to bait you into it just to gauge your iq.

Scientifically living things exhibit several characteristics. This should remind you of MRNIGERD.

So using comparison between living things as an insult only depicts unintelligence.

Eg Animal moves, does that mean that movement of humans is supposed to be derogatory?
Animals breath, perhaps you should stop breathing.
Animals feed, let's see how long you last without food.
Animals respond to stimuli, I'm sure you are already deciding your reaction to my response.

So me alluding the word atheism to animals or any other living creature is something that should make an intelligent mind see beyond insult but observation.

If an animal is trained to believe in god then it would likewise be theist. Perhaps that means theists are also animals?

Think sir!
Can an animal truly be an atheist?
Can a plant truly be an atheist?
Can a stone truely be an atheist?

Just check your logic!

Myer:
I think at this point you should write to the queen if England and teach them their own language.

I'm done sir.

According to the queen of England, what would be the antonym for BELIEF?
Would it be a LACK of BELIEF?

Myer:
I think at this point you should write to the queen if England and teach them their own language.

I'm done sir.

[b]According to the queen of England, what would be the antonym for BELIEF?[/b]
Would it be a LACK of BELIEF?

LordReed:
Post the meaning of agnostic theist.

Agnostic-theist:
A person who believe that nothing is known nor can be know about the nature of God or His existence YET taking measures (usually in form of adopting a religion or trying to be good) incase his position is wrong.

LordReed:
This is a faulty conclusion. That one set of things share one characteristic does not mean they share all other characteristic, that is a fallacy. It is like saying because dogs and goats eat therefore humans who eat are not reasonable, you can't use a share characteristic to imply another characteristic.

Humans can lack beliefs or doubt or actively disbelieve, your dichotomy is a false one.

Also your final conclusion is fallacious since your premises are wrong. Atheism is a lack of belief.

Only babies can lack a belief and the reason is obvious. The concept of deity get formed after some level of cognition is built in a child.

Why are you scared or apprehensive of the replacement of "lack of belief" with the proper antonym words like Disbelief, Doubt, Unbelief: knowing that these are the exact opposite of belief?

Could it be that the use of the words lack of BELIEF is calculated to do something else?

Will you agree that anyone/anything that cannot reason will lack a belief?

A lack of belief stems from lack of cognition.

Let me ask you a question:
Do you believe or lack a belief in akokuja?
Please tell the truth?

Myer:
I'm not the linguist who decided Theism is belief in a deity.
Neither did I decide the definition for atheism.
Theo means deity/god.

Hence Theism mean belief in a deity.
So atheism applies to unbelief in a deity.
General lack of belief is something else. I'm sure there's a word for that too.

As for the opposite of belief, it's unbelief.
Doubt and disbelief are close relations to unbelief.

I think that you can see the logical stupidity of those who define atheism as a LACK of BELIEF!

Atheism can be a Disbelief, Doubt, Unbelief in any deity.

There is a play on words so as to prevent the scrutiny of the definition of atheism interestingly by people who should understand the language better.

HellVictorinho3:
You can't help me



You should have said that a long time ago

I've been helping you but what you want is money. I don't know you well enough to do that please. Understand!

HellVictorinho3:
Nobody has awareness of any deity.......as for lacking beliefs.... the term 'atheist' is for humans.

Awareness of knowledge. Is it possible to explain the concept of a deity to an animal?