₦airaland Forum

KnownUnknown:
The Dragon is as qualified as gods to be “the source” of universe. Just because they haven’t “concluded about the Dragon” doesn’t mean it’s not the source.

Good if you believe so, but please take it to those whose position you're opposed to ,not me.


You should realise that your atheism is founded on the god claims of the two popular abrahamic religion, and you're ignorantly using that to generalise about others you're too lazy to investigate.

What is refer to as God or 'creator is not the same for every religion out there

For instance, for some, it's the universe itself or the different forms of energy that exist , ,meaning that, there's no external entity that has created anything.

If you happen to meet with those who strongly hold on to such believes, and you try to dismiss them with your alternative dragon god which is not seen,you would be laughed at ,taken to be insane, and advised to seek professional help urgently.

Those ones only 'deify' and reverence what they see and not what is imagined.

There are other god or 'creator' descriptions to talk of ,but the one I just explained is enough to let you see how and your friends have been displaying stubborn ignorance on something you not too well informed on.

Every religion has not accepted and imaginary 'creator' claim that you can dismiss with dragons or the stale flying spaghetti monster talk common amongs some atheist. That kind of mockery is a product of lazy thinking, and largely ineffectual to make any theist abandon their believes.

Just rest and stop the clowning

jaephoenix:
You're actually jumping the gun here. All this your hyperventilation is because you cannot prove that there is no red dragon swirling above your head right now. And I insist its there

Then see a doctor urgently if you "insists its there"

Or read up "the five whys of insanity" to understand why you alone sees what others cannot see.

Workch:
How about aliens then?

Ignore that person.

KnownUnknown:
The question is not silly because there is no reason to take whatever anyone calls god to be anything more than nonsense. If you are agnostic about gods then it follows that you should also be agnostic about Jaeohoenix’s dragon.

If you say that Jaephoenix’s dragon is a silly idea and a nonstarter, then whatever you are agnostic about can be dismissed the same way. So, I changed dragon to god in your post.

.

I didn't say it's silly idea. I said the question shouldn't be asked in the first place if he knows what he is doing.

There are good reasons to speculate or talk about the source of our universe, and it's why people everywhere have concluded about a God , big bang, or anything else closer to it ,but non whatsoever for flying dragons over people's head.

Tell me ,on what basis is he asking about that? How does it connect to anything tangible that normal people discuss everyday?



Your friend claimed not to ever see a flying dragon or believe in it, and it's also certain he doesn't know of anyone else who has ever seen or believed in it.

If that's the case, why asking another person in the same position as himself to prove why they cannot see what is not there ?

Is that not madness?

Who knows? He probably might be seeing one recently and wants to test if others are begining to see the same thing..Tell him to see a doctor or let him read about the "five whys of insanity" so he stop with the mad talk.

I only responded to him at first because of his mentions that I was running away and also to see if has anything to surprise me with, but non so far and you want to come and defend the craziness. You are jobless really

I think both of you can't stand the thought you might be making a mistake concerning the position you have taken on the matter and because of that wants to drag others who have decided to be neutral.



There are agnostics theist, I know, but I'm not that .So, don't try to use subterfuge to drag me into your usual fight with theists on this board.


This is the last response you will get from me concerning this issue.

KnownUnknown:
You’re agnostic about Dragon so I was supporting your position about how ridiculous god is.

Keep your support to yourself. I don't need it.

Give it to the person who has asked a silly question.

Workch:
I can't answer a question that doesn't make sense.
That's why I want you to make it make sense

Just ignore him. He is in the habit of reacting to things he won't take the time to understand first.

And this is not the first time.

I already answered his question , but since then, no reasonable response from him other than noises and stupid conditions .

KnownUnknown:
The Dragon created the world.

The Sun is the result of the Dragon’s breath when They thought “This expanse We have created deserves to experience the sensation of existence”.
Then , the Dragon thought, “Let there be an object to provide light and warmth, to nourish the earth and also cause destruction” and They took a deep breath and exhaled such that the Sun emanated from the Dragon and there was light and warmth along with destruction.
The Book of Scales and Fire - Chapter 3:16

The day turned into night, the birds chirped at the sudden darkness, the crickets came to life in a cacophony of clicking sounds. The Dragon’s spirit came down on The Twins and declared them the good and the evil to balance out creation. Then the Expanse opened up and the spirit descended like a seven-headed dragon and a roar was heard in the celestial realms, “These are Our progenies, in whom We are well pleased”
The Book of Brimstones and Sapphires - Chapter 4:19

The fool says in his mind, there is no Dragon.
Psalm 101

Why did you edit my comments to misrepresent me ? Where did I affirm any god before now?

Did you skip your medication or what ?

Workch:
yes, if you explain how it fits and aliens does not. I will answer

He can't make any sense. He is just bluffing.

He wants to throw illusion at himself to confuse himself, not me .

jaephoenix:
I just asked you a question. And y'all went haywire.
Someone asked, "Are you a Nigerian?" and you started accusing the person of all kinds of things.
I simply asked if you have a red dragon etc hovering over you, I haven't even explained the reason for the question and y'all agnostics are going ballistics

I know you will waste my time.

The questions about dragon doesn't make any sense in the contest of what is being discussed here, and I know you won't see it.

We are concerned about the real world itself and how it came about and not your imaginary dragon.

Nobody, except a mad man, would ask another person if they see a flying dragon over their head. Please I'm not calling you mad. I just want you to think of what you want to do.

Is it common to see that sort of thing?

Imagine somebody walking up to you to ask you about dragons

And if you manage to reply ,no

Then, he insist you prove why you can't see it . what nonsense!

Please be honest with yourself. How would you regard such a person, oga doctor?

You said you don't believe in flying dragons and not seen it before. If that's the case then ,both of us are in the same situation; I don't believe in such and never seen it too.

So why coming to ask me about it first instead of yourself since we are both in the same boat?

You don't know what you're doing.

Workch:
he wants you to agree with him that there no evidence for it hence it does not exist. But that does not apply to the argument of a creator... Atheists sometimes cannot reason differently from theists.

It's wrong in someone admitting that he doesn't know soemthjng and then becoming neutral to it

I want to see how he is going to make me agree with him. I haven't announced any dragon to him, yet ,he wants me to talk about it

Workch:
So can we stick to the god debate? Do derail it with Martian dragons and indigo borrowing bird analogy.
They don't make any sense

Leave him. I know where's heading to . I have met his type before

jaephoenix:
Lol. I simply asked you if you see any dragons. How does that translate to claiming a dragon is hovering over you?
Its a simple question which (for some reason) agnostics find that uncomfortable.
But now u have answered, I asked a rejoinder. Please do answer that.
We are getting somewhere

When did I announce to you a dragon is flying over my head for you to question me over it?

Answer me

And why are you asking me what you say you can't see yourself?

Does that make sense to you?

jaephoenix:
So now we have gotten somewhere. I thank you dear TripleChoice for such bravado on breaking out of your agnostic 'shell' and embracing reality.
And no, I dont see any flying dragons, hovering over my head. Or anything at all on my head.
So may I ask, how did u come to such a conclusion that there's nothing hovering over you? Forgive my inquisitive nature

You were the one who claimed a dragon is hovering over my head which I can't see.

So you should know what to do first

jaephoenix:
Oh, finally. A brave agnostic answers. Hallelujah praise thy Noodly Limbs, the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster. I bless your Holy Pasta.
Whoa!
Please don't be annoyed. Let me digest this breakthrough in this discourse. Lemme take a breath…

What's the bravery talk for ? I just saw your mention

If you want to take this as a joking session, I will ignore you

jaephoenix:
Okay. Nice theory.
Lets be practical.
Now answer this...
Is there a dragon hovering above your head right now? Yes or no is the answer.

I cannot see any. So no.

Do you see one ?

Answer yes or no

Maynman:
Dullard; where did i say it was agnostics that was given description?

Is anything hurting you apart from this discussion?

You will remain dull for live for saying that

Workch:
he's psychopath. If you think I'm lying, engage him. You will see for yourself

He has serious issues..

He has been pretending not to understand the agnostics position, but when he read about agnostics theist elsewhere, he immediately saw that it contradicts agnosticism.

It's not possible be neutral about something and still take side with it at the same time.

How did he recognise that instantly if not that he has been deceiving himself.

He should continue talking to himself.

Workch:
I think you are quoting the wrong person.
I'm not the psychopath you have been arguing with that post a lot of unwarranted definitions.

Avoid that guy

My bad. Sorry

Maynman:
Deities.

You're annoying.

" It's not possible for any person to genuinely know whether deities or the supernatural are actually true to their descriptions, or mere fabrications ,regardless of sincerity"

This is very clear.Agnostics are not the ones who have given the descriptions from what's there in that you posted, but you want to dubiously tie to them as if they affirm any deities.

You cannot comprehend what is written in plain English .

SMH. You're not a serious person at all. I'm just wasting my time.
Go back to school or try to be sincere when you discuss with people.

Workch:
you are in for a long miserable unending argument if you keep replying that dude. We will keep posting things that are irrelevant to the topic.

Your problem is comprehension.
What you posted is very clear, but you're trying to be clever by half with the whole world watching.

Let's see how you're going to escape again with your Houdini trick

Maynman:
They say it is not possible to know.

What did they say it's not possible to know ?

Maynman:
If you want yo be agnostic, be it, if you want to be atheist be it.
Mixing it together is just hilarious 😂

It has nothing do with me . keep that for those who practice that .

Don't try to force something on me because you want to win an argument.

Maynman:
I am laughing at your illiteracy.

It’s no more agnostic 😂

Are you a weak agnostic or strong one 😂

Been an agnostic theist is contradicting, make una stay one place

You're right it's contradictory just like agnostic atheist.

But I'm not an agnostic theist. It doesn't make sense to me.

You cannot be neutral and still take sides. That's their own problem not mine

Know the difference and stop the blind arguments. A strong agnostic is not the same as agnostic theist. The former neither believes or disbelieves in a god while the latter believes in a god which he claims cannot be known.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Maynman:
😂😂

Laughing stock

You're laughing at your own ignorance

Maynman:
Is agnosticism not about “god”?
Look up agnostos.

Theist sympathizers.

You failed once again.

What you brought is on agnostic theist just like we have agnostic atheist.

Agnostic theist are weak agnostics.

You're really desperate

Maynman:
If they say something is unknowable is that not a claim already?
Because if something is unknowable you won’t even know it is unknowable, so putting a name on this “unknowable” already defeats the principle.

Agnostics have not afiirm an unknowable 'something'.

You are confusing deism for agnosticism. You dont know the difference

Maynman:
The problem is you don’t understand what “god” mean.

All these are greek words that took religious meaning due to Christianity..

Before, “Agnostic” has nothing to do with religious connotation.

It's not about god, but what is agnosticism.
You don't know that

Focus on the present moment. You mind is stuck in the past

What is god?

Tell ne. I don't know

Maynman:
I think i worded it wrongly.
What i meant was if someone also questions or critically examines the principles of agnosticism itself.
“Being agnostic about agnosticism”.

The problem is you dont yet understand it.

How can one be agnostic about agnosticism?

Very funny question

I said so before ,Whenever you get stuck the next thing is to come up with nonsensical arguments or to turn logic on its head to wriggle yourself out .

You just proved me right

It's difficult for the theist and atheist to understand right off the bat the agnostic neutral stand .

Both struggle to reconcile agnosticism with the extreme position they have both taken on the matter.

And what is the issue under contention?
It's simply this ;

What is responsible for the world we currently live in, or how did it come about?

Creation by a God,gods, chance or what else we cannot even imagine?

Some theists are certain a God or gods are responsible .

Atheists ,who on the other hand, are opposed this, have not come up with any definite answer to this question , but only relying on the arguments put forward by theist to arrive at their own conclusion.

In the midst of this uncertainty and lack of accurate knowledge to answer the question correctly, the agnostic has decided to remain neutral and not say anything until there's enough evidence to be sure .That's it.

And who can tell ? It's possible the world was "created" by "something" we cannot even fathom at this point in time ,and if that's the case , then theists who are insisting on God or gods may be closer to the truth than the rest of us think.

If it's not ,then they are completely wrong.

But how can we know the truth and end all arguments?

It's only when we can begin to investigate it scientifically, but at the moment we are very far from doing so . No enough data to work with or current methods in the sciences may not be suited for such a task.

We are yet to understand much about the world we collectively share ,not to talk of "something" that may be beyond it .

Maynman:
We are talking about the origin of gods.
Not current meaning of “god”.

The worship of gods didn’t start yesterday, you are confused!

No . We are not talking that.

you talking to yourself.

I have left you.

Goodday

Maynman:
Borrowed from where?
If we want to know what theism means, should we not go to where it was borrowed into English?

We should continue to be without knowledge and call ourselves “agnostic”?

We are concerned with its current meaning.

If we were discussing its origin then you're on track, but now you're very off it.