₦airaland Forum

shadeyinka:
Another example of:

If my posts are irrelevant and a waste of space, why does it bother you so much that you keep replying? What does your reply to an empty message from a dumbo like me do for you exactly?

Lmao... this man

shadeyinka:
When you don't have an answer and yet want to say something completely meaningless in the name of taking up the available space!

Nothing special about any of my submission: they don't require a diploma in science (all you need is ability to comprehend simple English).
SMH!

@bolded
*sounds of loud sparks accompanied by large clouds of smoke*
Well, sh!t *fanning away the smoke* There goes another Irony Meter headed to the scrapyard.

@ SHADEYINKA
Holy hell, dude, you do realize you are on a religion forum, right? This is not a physics or cosmology site. Granted i know "religion" and astrophysics" sound and look alike, so honest mistake on ur part if you accidentally clicked wrong. I'm sure we've all done it before *turning to XxSabrinaxX & LordReed & shaking head discretely*. So with that in mind, i'll say again dat I think its great dat u have all this advanced knowledge about physics & such. And it is awfully kind of u to take time out of your scholarly studies to grace us with your presence in a valiant effort to expand our puny atheist minds. But it just seems a waste. It breaks my heart dat ur vast stores of knowledge are drained to near depletion on us godless dummies, as u clearly have d intellect to achieve greatness in d scientific community. The Nobel Prize is yours for the taking! Unshackle the bonds of dis site & cut loose the dead-weight anchor of those parasites who seek to hold you from greatness! WE ARE NOT WORTHY!

shadeyinka:
If there is a Logical or Scientific or other defences, rebut or otherwise then let's have it rather than accusations of what Atheists or Theists did on NL.

Wtf is this? What is the accusation here? Can you listen to yourself?

I stated that theists use advanced science to assault theists and claim that their favourite god exists. I stated the reasons why this was amusing and pointed out the fact that some theists dismiss science as a way of proving god.

You know what? I give up with you. Go and enjoy your god.

LordReed:
LMFAO! End of discussion is end of discussion.

Lol. Dude has started ranting and throwing boring shades. He's getting emotional. Smh

shadeyinka:
Can you disprove the source Empirically?

Only a dishonest fellow will avoid saying the answer!

No one can prove or disprove a source empirically. And that is why we should not conclude at least not yet, that there is a source. It is more reasonable to withhold belief. If you knew anything about the burden of proof, you wouldn't be asking such nonsense.

shadeyinka:
I honestly don't know what the argument is about with you.

I don't know what it is with you either. You're pointlessly dragging an irrelevant issue.

You laid an accusation and you expect a mute response!?

And i've asked you to screenshot the accusation you claim. Are you obsessed with pointless squabbles?

Please can everyone participating in this thread help me answer this: Is it more logical and intellectually honest to a) Believe in something you can not know OR b) Withdraw belief in something you can not know
XxSabrinaxX LordReed Budaatum Jamesid92 Tintingz Martinez39 Shadeyinka

shadeyinka:
I think you raised the point in defence of Atheism. Atheists are not as sweet as you think on Nairaland. You need to experience some of them to understand. But I've also met great and friendly Atheist.

But no one can prove God. It's impossible. You can only know Him.

Dude, do you read to respond? I seem to remember telling you something along the lines of "Your lying and crap arguments will work with your fellow christians, not atheists". You're the one who blew the statement out of proportion, twisting the facts and making strawmen. I never stated that theists were rude to atheists. If i did, you can fact check me and show me a screenshot. If i did not, well, i guess this further proves (and even you can see) why everyone is calling you a liar.

shadeyinka:
1. The non-christian sticky thread is not a section but a persistent thread.
This mean a single thread that persists irrespective of time or ranking of activities
2. Non-christian imply anyone with a different religious beliefs other than Christianity or Islam can chat. Buddhist, ATR, Religious cults etc

However, Atheists have been found to populate every religious section and thread.

At the end of the day, there is a seperate place set out to accomodate atheists, christians, muslims etc. The definitions of section and thread are uncalled for.

Atheists' occupation of multiple areas of the forum is only proof that atheism is not a belief or religion as most would like to believe. Don't really understand why you deemed it fit to bring that up.

This is a petty argument anyway so let's drop it.

SHADEYINKA

As you can see i'm not bothering to quote you cause i don't have time for trolls. If you think the fallacies of your postulations haven't been exposed over and over again, you must be the most deluded or dishonest human on this planet. Like i said, there is no use arguing with you. It's very clear you want to be right by any means necessary.

I have one question though, if there is no section on NL for atheists / christians to gather, then what goes on in the Non-Christian / Christian chatbox threads that can be seen when you click Religion from the main page?

SHADEYINKA

I am a layman, so let me clarify this for you in my own way.

There is no denial from any Atheists here. No atheist here is making a positive claim about anything. It's all in your head. What we're trying to tell you is very simple: If there is a source or initiator (and that's a big IF because we cannot be a 100% sure), you cannot just conclude that it is "a god". How do you know it isn't a race of intelligent cosmic entities we have no way of verifying? You have to accept that we cannot know everything. Your failure to provide objective proof of this "god" you keep inserting after a whooping six pages is evidence of that. You are displaying a bias towards one option and ruling out the rest based on nothing really. All your arguments use physics, which is still pure natural science. I'm not ready to engage in any pointless back and forth because it appears to me that you are just repeating the same thing over and over. It's of no use.

Edit: There is a section for atheists actually.

@SHADEYINKA
Just a little food for thought here.

* I am NOT a scientist
* I am NOT a physicist
* I am NOT an astrophysicist
* I am NOT a cosmologist
* I am NOT a mathematician
* I am NOT a biologist
* I am NOT a chemist
* I am NOT a geologist
* I am NOT a historian
* I am NOT a psychologist
* I am NOT a sociologist

What I am is a young secondary school English teacher who lives a comfortable and happy life with my amazing wife. And I also happen to be an atheist after finally being able to escape the bonds of my religious indoctrination within the last couple of years.

Now speaking of my atheism, here is something that may interest you a bit. While i do have some amount of interest in those fields of study listed above, i am not anywhere near an expert in any of them in any way, shape or form. For the most part, i have only a basic knowledge and a general understanding of many of those subjects, as they appeal to the "nerdy side" of my limited intellect. More importantly, however, (pay attention, because this is the important part) my being an atheist is independent of any of those fields of study. About the only thing any of those disciplines do is to help me reinforce the reasons i do not believe in your god or any other gods.

So that being said, i think it is great if you happen to have advanced studies or a degree in one or more of those fields. Fantastic. Good for you. I happen to enjoy learning about and discussing various things in some of those areas myself. What i find hilarious, however, is how you and other such theists attack us atheists, spouting all types of "advanced" science/physics/cosmology and such, and then try to claim some sort of victory for your god when most of us are unable to counter your psychobabble. It truly is amusing on many levels.

1. As i've already stated, my being an atheist is NOT dependent on science.
2. If you are trying to use science to convince me and others that your god is real, you have lost before you even started.
3. I have lost count of how many times i've seen other theists on this same forum attack atheists saying that science cannot be used to prove god exists.
4. If your god is so very interested in his human pets knowing about cosmology, physics, biology, physiology and such, then perhaps he should have inducted some of those things in that "perfect book" he divinely inspired. (Then again, i suppose talking about clothing made of fibres was more important).
5. Isn't your using science to try to prove your god is real actually going AGAINST the whole concept of faith? Seems to me that is a bit blasphemous.

Basically, if you're trying to use science to prove your god into existence, then i suggest you join your friends over at the christian chatbox thread or whatever. No doubt they will hang on every word you say. Going to the non-christian thread, however, or running into atheists in a random thread, i'm afraid you will find the gullibility factor WAAAY too low for your tastes. Nice try though

jamesid29:
After going through the thread, I would like to suggest to Mr shadeyinka, if you can, to take the high road and let the conversation die a natural death. I may not agree with you on some of the statements you have made but any honest person reading this thread would agree that the people you're engaging with really do not understand the subject matter well enough to make and follow through with meaningful counter claims. All we can see is half baked counter claims sprinkled with mockery,name calling and assertions of superior intellect.

It's mind boggling to have a statement like this

In the same post, a statement like this is made:


I could be wrong but I personally don't see any reason to continue the conversation.

I could also be wrong or maybe i'm off my hinges but i don't understanding your point or the contradiction you're trying to highlight. Please clarify. Thank you.

FOLYKAZE:
Lol... Out of his hole.

You see, you guys are fierce esp when put in the same hole with Abrahamic faithfuls. That is the only moment you pull the gun.

Makes we wonder if atheism is disbelieve in existence of Abrahamic concept of God only.

Or should we assume that is what atheism actually is?

On the contrary, sir. I've not even begun conversing with you. However your toxic method and baseless intellectual bullyism just puts me off. Judging from your first few posts, you already strike me as an arrogant fellow who just wants to hear himself talk. I can already tell that any further discourse with you would be akin to pouring sand on an open wound. Just wanted to get that off my chest cause this will be my last response.

Side note: Common sense alone should tell you that "A-Theism"(did you see that?) has nothing to do with any worldview that isn't theistic. Thus, the last parts of your post in red shouldn't even be pondered on at all. But what do i know sir? Hmm?

tintingz:
I'm just not comfortable when you use "energy can created", people like theists may assume you're talking about creating like their God did. It's better to use "transfer or transform" that's more appropriate.

Aiit. I get what you're saying.

The universe could have come from nothing? Is that what you meant?

Who knows? It's just one of many possibilities. Like i've said, a hypothesis.

tintingz:
I don't think energy can be created per se, it can be transferred or transformed.

But energy is bound/limited to this universe.

Like i said, It's a current hypothesis that the total energy of the universe is precisely zero, with the positive energy of matter exactly balanced by the negative energy of gravity. This view is supported by observations of the total curvature of the universe.

There were three possible geometries for the universe: open, closed, or flat. In an open universe, there's more energy in matter than in gravity, causing the expansion of the universe to speed up over time. In a closed universe, gravity has more energy than matter, causing the expansion to slow, stop, and reverse. In a flat universe (without dark energy), the two are balanced, and the expansion will slow down but never quite stop. By analyzing the apparent size of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background radiation, we can distinguish between the three.

And the universe is flat.

Which means that the universe has zero total energy. And a universe with zero total energy could have come from nothing without violating any conservation laws.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

FOLYKAZE:
Where and when did you show Energy doesn't fit into the nature of God?



Proven that since Energy exist, God does exist too



Another baseless tantrum.




You wouldn't see it but would see reason in given organism binomial name in he science world. Talk of hypocrisy.



Better understanding.


You are in all directions. The discussion is not if impersonal forces are refutable or relevant, it is if they exist.



The fancy word wouldn't make you smart. Who are these people?




That is the view of many cultures nd religion. They view money as God. If you have problem with that, go deal with it



Yes



How old are you? You were thinking money is just currency. How dull...

People worship water as a deity, I don't have problem if water is omnipresent.




Another one in khaleed voice.
Energy can be created....tell me another thing.


Cc.. Dalaman... Your comrade says energy can be created. He could have done this in his lab. Shouldn't we learn from him?

Cc.. Muttleylatff .. I hve found a genius who can create energy.

Don't bother. YOU ARE RIGHT!

Dalaman

MuttleyLaff

FOLYKAZE:
Maybe when you can provide a logical and acceptable argument that shows Energy does not fit into the nature of God.

I already did lol. You just want to act like i didn't. One can't help but wonder what ulterior motives you have at play here.

If you knew what anthropomorphism and personification is, you would understand spiritual people were trying to explain or express their understanding about nature and the universe by giving it a human attribute. This effort, however, does not in anyway changes the true nature of the natural forces.

Exactly! So what has been achieved now?

And you made headcount huh?

Are you seriously doubting this? Perhaps, you and your people have your weird fetishes and beliefs, but don't think for a second that you're in the majority. I even gave, as proof, the fact that there are countless theistic religions the world over.

Personal God is a personification of impersonal forces. They are still the same thing. The only difference here is worldview and expression, but same nature.

If they are still the same thing, i see no reason for personification or redefinition.

When people tends to personify energy, it will have human attributions and become Shakti.

Again. What's the point?!

And in a situation where Energy is not personified, we end up with Impersonal forces like The Ultimate, Infinite, The one, and other tags.

These impersonal forces are unfalsifiable. Thus, irrelevant.

How does the irrelevant question above address my question?

You made an assertion, that "Any entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people’s view and understanding, God."

The fallacious claim above implies that God is the only thing that inspire and motivate people. Isn't that what you mean?

No. That is your usual strawman mining at work here because i specified that this was true for a subset of people. As i later discovered, you seem not to be one of them. Get on page.

Please quit jumping around

Rotflmao... I should be telling YOU this!

Perception. Driving by value and worth.

Yawn!!!

You are not denying people hold money in high esteem. Thank heavens!!

Let me break it down..

Do you know money is a God? Christians and Muslims agree on this. It is also a God in different cultures.

In your sense, God attribution is omnipotency.

Yoruba people says, oun owo se ti, ile ni gbe. That statement mean money is all powerful. By it value, everything can be done with the right quantity.

On a literal sense, everything has a cost. And anything that has a cost can be gotten with money.

You are already limiting the power of money with the bolded statement. For if money is a God, it should acquire ANY and EVERY thing.

Can money give you talent? Can money cure diseases like Tay-Sachs? Can money raise back the dead?

Please say YES if you have the guts

Omnipotency checked!!

No. Not really

Work on omnipresence

I think i can search out a lot of things that are more "omnipresent" than money. E.g Water

This is not the aim of this discussion, you are making all ruse which doesn't make sense.

Allow me to digress to your game...

The religious people held that God is alpha and omega. You held Energy has no beginning or end.

Ehh... Hold up a minute.

We know that energy can be created from mass; that's how the sun and atom bombs work. (And we can do the opposite, on a much smaller scale, inside particle accelerators.)

And finally, the current hypothesis is that the total energy of the universe is zero, so we know where the energy to create all the stuff in the universe came from: it turns out that space contributes negative energy, leading to a total (space + the stuff in the space) of zero.

Goodnight friendAny entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people

Lol. Yeah. Sure thing, mate.

FOLYKAZE:
You won't see the picture esp when you are looking toward the wrong direction.

What will it take to convince you that YOU are looking toward the wrong direction?

Do you know what Anthropomorphism is?

On a literal sense, do you know what personification is?

Have you heard about Impersonal God/forces once?

As a matter of fact yes. Unfortunately, i find them all irrelevant. Sorry.

Only a kid will picture God as a white beaded man sitting on throne on throne in the sky

Strawman fallacy. Also, it will interest you to know that majority of people view God as a personal force. Proof is the countless theistic religions we have all of the world. Clearly you're not in the majority.

Where did you get this from?

Why do people go to church?

What is your explanation for religious extremism?

To you, it does not make a difference. To some people, it does make a difference.

Exactly. To some. Not all

You need to look into the reason why people keep money in high esteem and not extend same value to old newspaper.

Money is a lot of things. Omni-potent isn't one of them.

Spot the difference sir.

sigh... I couldn't be bothered less honestly. I can view reality as it is without ever needing extraordinary claims and everything i've ever witnessed or experienced can and has been explained via science. I've never felt the need for "God". Maybe you do, but i don't.

Good night, sir.

FOLYKAZE:
Replace Energy with God in your post. Now reflect on it. Does it make sense?

We can start from there.

See ya tomorrow. Goodnight

Not OP but my answer to the bolded is NO. All i see is yet another attempt to obtain permission to use the name God by twisting the meaning such that it loses relevance.

The general opinion, that is, what most people understand as God is some all-powerful entity who has interest in humans, wants to have a personal relationship with them, and has the power to directly affect human lives and afterlives. Because of this, that entity needs to be obeyed, reverenced and worshipped. Be it due to fear, gratitude or obligation.

But because of God, we have to take some particular actions and decisions in our lives. Any entity whose existence does not inspire or motivate us to do something different from that which we would normally do is not, by most people’s view and understanding, God.

Ultimately, you are in no way wiser because someone has given a tag to something that makes no difference at the end of the day.

St1ckman:
So...

Just taking it mathematically you get 1/x probability of being correct and (x-1)/x chance of being wrong. Where x is the number of religions including strong atheism.

Now lets look at the probability of agnosticism and weak atheist. Because they do not make a choice their probability of being correct is 0/x or 0%.

Well, you're just bad at... everything that's in your comment.

Claim: I have a diamond.

I have not provided any evidence that I have a diamond or anything to suggest that I do or do not have the means or reasons to have a diamond.

Possible positions:
1. "That's false." - unjustified - no reason to believe I don't have a diamond.

2. "That's true." - unjustified - no reason to believe I do have a diamond.

3. "I don't believe you do have a diamond." - justified - no evidence has been presented, no reason to adopt this belief.

4. "I don't believe you don't have a diamond." - justified - no evidence has been presented, no reason to adopt this belief.

(Side note: In actuality, these positions are inter-related: If 1 then 3, if 2 then 4, else 3 and 4.). Your "argument" that an independent party should immediately adopt either the belief that I have a diamond, or the belief that I do not have a diamond, without any justification, is ridiculous.
As for being wrong? Sorry, but the people who hold position 3 and 4 are 100% correct. They are, in fact, not justified in holding position 1 or 2.

This makes any religion including strong atheism

Excuse me? Could you show me strong atheism's scripture?
Maybe you can enlighten me regarding some of strong atheism's rituals and practices? Can I meditate to commune spiritually with strong atheism's lack of theistic entities?

"Religion" is a word that is ill-defined, but NONE of its potential definitions apply to the belief in the non-existence of gods.

For a moment, let's skip the whole "does god exist" question. In this hypothetical, god exists. There is still no reason to believe that Christianity is the correct take on this god rather than Islam or Judaism, or that Shintoism is the correct one rather than the ancient Greek or Norse pantheons, or that Hinduism is the correct one rather than Zoroastrianism, etc. Hell, why aren't the Nine Divines the true gods? If I choose to believe that, why am I wrong?

There is just no way to prove that your version is the correct take. You're not just arguing against atheists, you're also arguing against every other religion in human history. And I don't think there are ways to debunk all of these other religions without invoking arguments that apply to your own just as much.

The only reason you believe in your religion above all others, 99% of the time, is because of the religious beliefs of your parents or the culture in which you live. If you were raised nonreligious and later became a Christian, it's probably because you live in a majority Christian culture. It's not because you sat down, evaluated every other religion, and decided yours was the correct one.

I don't believe this is an obstacle theists can adequately overcome for their respective religions, but I am open to a debate.

NnennaG6:
Thanks for your comment, but it shows a serious misunderstanding of the biblical text.

Or maybe you have got it completely wrong? There are countless different ways that the bible could be interpreted. How have you determined that your particular interpretation is correct?

You say the woman is "forced to marry her rapist." But a plain reading of the text shows that it is the man who is being pronounced guilty, and the man who is being forced to marry.

Yes a man can be 'forced' to marry a woman he raped. Do you seriously not see any issue with that?

The girl has to agree with this arrangement, and she isn’t required to marry the seducer. In this arrangement she is still treated as a virgin.

Where the heck does it say the girl has to agree to the arrangement? Where the heck does it say she will be treated as a virgin if she doesn't?

Oh and calling a rapist a seducer is utterly appalling.

NnennaG6:
It's odd that you address your question to Christians and then use 4 examples from Islam. You probably know that Christians neither agree with nor endorse Islamic teaching and practice. Then you proceed to say that "Yet, every, single, one, of these terrible laws existed in ancient Israel." This is what is worthy of discussion. The question is, I guess, do you want to talk about God as the standard of morality, or proper understandings of authority, homosexuality, apostasy, and capital punishment? They are very different conversations.


Here's another piece of misunderstanding. The Old Testament is not legislation. "Legislation" is OUR worldview on law, but it was not the ancient worldview. This is yet another conversation. Therefore your conclusion "By the very definition of a standard, God isn't one" is mistaken.

So which piece do you want to discuss? General (perhaps objective) morality, authority, homosexuality, apostasy, legislation, capital punishment, or God's morality?

Not OP, but I think the point is that in present-day Kyrgyzstan a woman can be forced to marry her rapist, something that you and I and everyone reading this can agree is disgusting and vile. And yet the same thing was a requirement of the Old Testament law, i.e., things that Israel was told to do if they wanted to be blessed by God.

jesusjnr:
Speaking of true value.

Bro please see my response. After which i promise not to bother you anymore

jesusjnr:
I have seen your mail, and would reply as soon as I can.

Thanks.

Thanks bro. Pls check for my final reply.

jesusjnr:
Good.

Check your mail again. Please

jesusjnr:
I have replied. Check your mail.

Responded. Let's take it there.

jesusjnr:
To what purpose if I may ask?

Bro just reply. If i didn't want it private, i'd tell you right here

jesusjnr:
To what purpose if I may ask?

Bro just reply. If i didn't want it private, i'd tell you right here

jesusjnr:
Signs of desperation already for someone who claimed to be a mere spectator, now the one to declare the winner, Lol!

Spectator indeed!

So I have nothing more to say to the dead(Satan zombies) supporters of their dead(Satan zombie), than what I'd said before.

Check your mail sir