₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
But just so you don't mislead others, if a person was participating in clinical trials and dies in a car wreck, an autopsy would be performed to determine the cause of death. If the cause of death is unrelated to the medical trials, like say a drunk driver just drove into one, it would not be listed as a side effect of the unrelated clinical trial!

Just imagine walking out of the trial and someone off the streets stabs you to death. How does you stabbed to death relate to the clinical trial such that it becomes a side effect? If it were, then one could just go ahead and sue the clinical trial people and not the person who caused the car wreck or stabbed you!

?

Even before clinical research, auto cash are payed and some hospital even insured you should be incase it goes opposite.


As i said provide a science journal to validate my premises is wrong, if not I consider what you put up there as someone speaking from ignorance.

I have chipped in what clinical trials is all about, but if you care to know. Read again.

budaatum:
Why do you lie so much! It is not true that if a person is in a "medication trial, and you die in a car wreck, death will be put as a side effect of that medication" !

Science does not work that way!

Have you ever be involve in clinical trials? Have you ever read and update yourself on what involves in clinical trials? Have you ever seen a documented report of clinical trials? Do you honestly aware of medical procedure regarding clinical trials?. If not, then you are the liar, if yes, provide evidence that refute my claim in any science journal even if it is unsound. I will acknowledge it.

But before then, let me chip in some enlightment, in
A clinical trial, the record and informatiin gather during that perioud is very important because the researchers are gathering statistics. For example ff five of the test subjects die within a week, does that mean the drug is unsafe? You should know how they died. Was it a car accident or old age? Did they have a known or unknown medical condition? Or These are recorded to evaluate whatever relate to the cost of death. These are what will be listed as side effect before the drug can be branded. It is when branding that appropriate recommendation will be attached to it (I.e) the one that seems close.

Speak for yourself. Go ask the Palestinians how many people see their side, and they are people who could possibly claim justification for it! Most people would never see justification in suicide bombing!

myopic level of reasoning, inabilty not fathon or deduce the content of argument.


Who is siding or justifying suicide bombing?

Looking at the premise of bilal Philip argument there is enough reasons to consider the logic a sound argument ( there are lot of sacrifice in millitary )Except you mind is not well trained to accommodate simple deductive reasoning, which determines whether the truth of a conclusion can be determined for that rule, based solely on the truth of the premises. And this what bilal Philip had presented.

Yes it can be refuted, but this is an example I made here for the moniker to see the point of blaming scientists from another angle

budaatum:
No, not really vaxx. If you can't be intellectually honest you would never learn, not from me anyway.

But if you want to learn, just go over some of your own writings with some honesty. Read it as if someone else wrote it and you would at least see how you come across.

This is 'Geldingsdrang' . it is a German word for such an individual like you, it is a disorder people suffer from - an extreme compulsion to draw attention to themselves - positive or negative - in order to be acknowledged or valued while making the person you are correcting look awkward


Don't appeal to my emotion. it is a coward trait....i almost expose your ignorance but thank Buddha you save it for another day.

Obi1kenobi:
The classic act of projection. Spouts a lot of incoherent gibberish trying hard to impress us with highfalutin language and claims it's someone else doing so.

last - wordism

Obi1kenobi:
You're trying too hard, lad. Your attempted verbosity here is making your comments rather disjointed and incoherent. Too many words saying nothing at all worth arguing.



I've told you your grandiose, pompous preening doesn't interest or impress me. You can keep "schooling" whoever you think in your fantasies. I wasn't here to argue convoluted nonsense about what intellectuals, whether Sagan or Einstein or Stephen Hawking or Bohr or whoever believed. This is not a face-off between what Einstein thinks and what Stephen Hawkings thinks, or between what Aquinas thinks and what Kant thinks, which is why I sought to leave out the pointless appeal to authority. It's about what some Nairaland posters think. It's a digression, but seeing as arguing coherently along a line of inquiry seems hard for you, of course you don't understand the digression. Argue in your own words with your own convictions.
Your Supreme Court point is some hilarious shiit. You're on an anonymous internet forum. You try far too hard to sound sage and profound.

I know it perfectly well when the opponent lost it all and has nothing to say .

It will be tantrum and gibberish, while wordism follow.

Osinamoney:
ambode should 4get throwing tantrums and face the situation squarely, he has absolutely nothing to lose unless he is very very very greedy. hasn't he looted enough to sustain his generation?

LOL

LordReed:
OK. I think I see what's happening. Einstein was kinda reluctant to commit himself to labels. He didn't want to be seen as an anti-theist while not believing in an anthropomorphic god and liked Spinoza's ideas while being agnostic.

Maybe we can agree he was an agnostic pantheist?

He rejected atheism completely and that is my stand....and According to a biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.[27] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[27][28] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[29].

I just said his veiw toward God is akin to that kind of Yoruba tradition (spinoza) who veiw element of God in both known and unknown entities.

LordReed:
You must not have read it.

Religious beliefs Edit
Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic",[5] "religious nonbeliever"[3] and a "pantheistic"[9] believer in "Spinoza's God".[2] Einstein believed the problem of God was the "most difficult in the world"—a question that could not be answered "simply with yes or no." He conceded that, "the problem involved is too vast for our limited minds."[10]

check my arguments here. I made it straight forward that Albert Einesten kind of believe is Spinoza and far from atheism. I said he believes in impersonal kind of God which athiest reject.

You claiming he is an atheist is what I am refuting . He crtiticise atheism in many of his speech and I shall be sending the links to you as soon as I can.


Further on the same Wikipedia I ask you to read.

Albert Einstein veiw regarding atheism ""According to biographer Walter Isaacson, Einstein was more inclined to denigrate atheists than religious people.[27] Einstein said in correspondence, "[T]he fanatical atheists...are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional 'opium of the people'—cannot hear the music of the spheres."[27][28] Although he did not believe in a personal God, he indicated that he would never seek to combat such belief because "such a belief seems to me preferable to the lack of any transcendental outlook."[29]""

LordReed:
When you are ready post the link.

I will be posting links of books to you. But till then enjoy a Wikipedia read on why Albert Einstein is not an athiest

/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

LordReed:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2687/4496554935_0b573db853_o.jpg

https://books.google.com.ng/books?id=G_iziBAPXtEC&pg=PA340&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/may/13/peopleinscience.religion

lol. I can give you more than a full page of thread as a link to state otherwise. As I said I need to rest.

budaatum:
Yes, this way of thinking is absurd, if just because of the implied false equivalence! Isn't there a fallacy for that? What killed him is not the issue here but whether he is dead or not!

Do you know that bad writing reflects bad thinking?

No i don't know, so can you make me to know? Budaatum.

LordReed:
That is not true. Einstein himself was an atheist, an agnostic one.

i need to rest. Asking you for a further evidence may require a long back and forth excuses which I am just piss off for now.

chemystery:
Christians recognise other gods as nonexistent. Any other thing you are saying is indicating that Christians regard Satan as a god which is not true. There is just Yahweh and his enemy Satan whom christians don't recognise as a God or god. Other standalone gods are nonexistent to Christians. Even after showing you a common christian song that clearly indicated that christians believe all other gods are works of men yet you still prefer to be lying to yourself. I'm tired of going in circles with you. You can keep lying to yourself if that gives you a satisfaction that you won the argument. Suit yourself bro.

Even after demonstrating with historical evidence you are making error, you still reject verified truth.

Ok while suiting myself, remember to lock the left door.

LordReed:
Sure, given the size of the universe any statement of quality or quantity of our knowledge would be an understatement.

I like your line of reasoning, and this is why esteem figure such as Albert Einesten find it illogical/irrational to be an athiest.

Obi1kenobi:
A lack of belief in gods is no different from a lack of beliefs in fairies and unicorns. Infact, theists by nature are atheists to other deities other than those they worship.

come to rethink about this. isn't this line of thought sound irrational, so because Dele giwa was killed by a letter bomb as make him alive concerning other potential causes of death (fire, stab wounds, illnesses, gun shoot etc.). Such a way of thinking is absurd.

LordReed:
You can't make any leaps or conclusions on the nature of what we don't know because we don't know.

This is an honest answer, and Albert Einesten while acknowledging that, agree precisely this unknown peherps is greater than what We already have the full knowledge about.

LordReed:
The implication of his word wasn't that there is something greater than physics. He was implying that arrogance that let's you say you know should be avoided whether as a theist or atheist. [b]That what we do not know is yet greater than what we know [/b]and we should enjoy the journey of discovery like a baby enjoys finding out new things. No supernatural beings or realms was implied.

And this is the point I am emphasising, physics we know and what is it that we are yet to know that is greater than what We know?

Spinoza kind of God is not about supernatural in its own unique standing, it is acknowledging that we are part of this Entity called God. But known and unknown.

budaatum:
I'm beginning to think you intentionally don't proofread what you post because it gives you wriggle room when cornered.

Ask any Christian and they'd tell you there is only one God. To them, there are no other gods but God. And they will inform you that god is not God, which is illogical, but that's Christianity for you. And satan or the devil is most definitely not a god in Christianity!

lol ..... I am still on holiday on your case.......

chemystery:
No one is saying Christians don't believe Satan or demons exists and are worshiped. This doesn't not rule out the fact that Christians believe many gods are man-made and thus nonexistent. These gods they believe cannot hear, see or even respond just like Baal you mentioned. This is different from demons which Christians believe can be invoked. In christianity, it is either God/Angels or Satan/Demons or a host of other powerless nonexisting entities.

Your christian friends never claim the nonexistence of Sango? Did they claim his existence? If they do, as what? Satan? Demon? Or a standalone god?

It seems you are loosing grasp of your argument now when evidence is thrown at your face.

The bone of argument here is, do christain recognize the existence of other gods? In which I answer in affirmative yes. Whether it is demons or satanic , it is just part of teaching embedded in Christian theology.

Christain recognised other gods and term them as smaller gods(maybe in form of Satan or demon).that is why there is this unique way of making letter g in capital for the bigger God while small letter for the smaller gods.

Throughout the old testament, Yahweh was seeing constantly fighting this smaller gods. And if you are familiar with Jewish history, you will notice YAHWEH is also called EL who was the chief god of the Canaanite pantheon. The quaternity was El his wife Asherah and their children Ba’al and Anath. All the west Asian tribes (of whom the Hebrews were one) worshiped these four in various forms and guises.

And as monotheism developed all three were deposed and El alone retained as the Supreme God. El is also the one and only Allah according to the Muslim

Yes Yoruba christain regard Yoruba orishaas as demons and gods that is lower in rank to compare with Yahweh.

chemystery:
Vaxx is saying that Christians believe that Sango and the rest of other gods exists. That is the level of insincerity theists can go to win an argument. It is evident that vaxx just like our old friend butterflylion is not after arguing about what is right but who is right. Only makes me wonder if he has been bitten by the same dog that bit butterflylion. Being intelligent should be accompanied with being intellectually honest else you just end up looking stupid. Many theists are intelligent but intellectual stubbornness makes them sound dumb at times. Many atheist here were once active Christians and we know very well what christians believe and what they don't. In fact, Christians believe all other gods are nonexistent. This is evident from a gospel song that goes this way: All other gods, they are the works of men. You are the only true god; there is none like you . Atheists on the other hand agrees with Christians that all gods are works of men (nonexistent), including their so called "only true god". But according to vaxx logic, Christians not believing in other gods except one is logical while atheists not believing in all is illogical. In essense, to be logical, just pick a random god and agree it is in existence. It doesn't really matter if other religion believes that god is a made-up nonsence. Just pick one, any one and you will be inducted in the hall of fame of logical people.

well i will not sound similar to you but rather I will enlight you.

Depending on what version of the bible you have at your disposal., the old testament here on my table says ""though shall have no other gods except me"". (I live you to deduce the logic in that statement).that is if you approach it with honesty.

Paul the apostle referred to other “so-called” gods as demons. In the gospel, The belief in ancient Israel was that other gods were actually fallen spiritual beings, such as Satan or the 200 fallen watchers in I Enoch. These beings convinced people to worship them, thus stealing worship from the the True God of the Bible. So, Baal, for example, was a real being under this concept, but he was inferior to God, a traitor to God and was stealing souls from God.

For further example, None of the Yoruba christain i met ever claim the non existence of sango or ogun(authough they generally regard them satanic)Even they claim Esu one of the orishaas is the same as Lucifer or called it satan.


If only you can be truthful to yourself once, then the truth will fall naturally on your face.


There is an adage common to Yoruba speaking christain. It goes thus.. ...Esu lagbara, sugbon ko ni igbala.
(the devil is powerful and can give power, but he can't give salvation)

MuttleyLaff:
I think you meant to type "impersonal" instead of "interpersonal"
as that will seat well with the God of Spinoza that Einstein said he believes in

You are right ....i blame auto suggestion for that. What surprise me is Albert Einstein of far Germany having similar idea with yoruba tradition. And this was the reason that mafe develop a personal interest fkr him.

Obi1kenobi:
Evidence? Dude, I don't know who has been deceiving you, but nothing you have argued here remotely resembles "evidence". You can't even stick to a line of inquiry without deviating with irrelevant ramblings. You employ a lot of buzzwords about "logic" and "fallacies" etc that equate to high highfalutin nonsense.

I can see you begin to sound like someme who loose grasp of his understanding now but will be comfortable to look for mistake where none exist, yes it is a part of twin fallacy people of your kind committed. Rejecting without explaining, you must have taught to have provoke some point by pointing out the the flaws while not using the same standard to judge yours. It only show inconsistency between your knowledge claims and that of your reasons.

Pointing out that you don't know the meaning of "belief system" is elementary deduction. Hence, why you can assert atheists have no belief system proudly

wordism will not even save you here , since you are operating an objection with inconsistency between your line of knowledge and reasons, rebuking one side of argument without stating what it suppose to be. you will be close mind to see you are failing to address the point you quoted me of. . In which case i am pointing out to you that any implementation of an inconsistency would be a violation of the Rules (or a rule) of Pragma Dialectica which you are commiting.

Your preening about your intellect does not interest me. I'm not impressed. Repeating the word "evidence" again and again, doesn't mean you have any grasp of the concept. Simply stick to the line of argument rather than irrelevant digressions about Einstein's beliefs and "challenges" and whatnot.

Why shouild I impress you? Am here to refute your fallacious claim you quoted me of, I am of the opinion you have a myopic knowledge of the importance in appealing to authority in a straight debate, it is non-fallacious precisely when it makes sense to believe the person offering the information is reasonably expected to be knowledgeable on the topic. In other words, it's a question of what for us would qualify as an "authority." Arises.and since Carl saga and Albert Einesten in this category qualify , it make absolute sense to cite them as evidence.i may be schooling you here. Even In law, an issue regarding constitutionality requires appeal to the authority of the Supreme Court of The state. Notice that in this case not only appeals to a legally established authority, but the decisions are derived from more than one authoritative individual using them.

And your inability not to recongnise this importance shows you still needs lots of work to do. (Human development.

LordReed:
vaxx

You seem to be misconstruing Einstein's words so as to give validity to your own. Einstein did not believe in a personal anthropomorphic god.

Yes ,i am aware Einesten kind of God ideology is akin to that of Spinoza .an impersonal kind of God rather than an anthriphormophic one which is very related to Yoruba tradition.


I am also aware he believes in something higher than physics.

Obi1kenobi:
Yes, they do not believe in the existence of their gods. Arguing otherwise is being willfully obtuse or laughably deluded. Your average modern Greek citizen does not really believe that there is a sun god. Or a god of love. Or a god of war and all that. Keep twisting yourself in knots though trying to assert otherwise

lol the normal tendency they show when they are caught in corner, adhominem spotted. Yet it does not make you sound relevant either, it only give me the clue that the person is close minded and no matter the amount of evidence throw at him, he will not see logic in it. They are this set of individual who in the face of objective truth still prefer to be ignorance..

That's not a "fallacy". That's a nonsensical statement which shows you don't know what a "belief system" means.

ad hominem 2 spotted again.sayimg it without giving explanation as to what you personally attack me for is fallacy on its own. You have to tell us what a believe system means? And as to why you consider atheism as a belief system.

Your "challenge" doesn't interest me either. Your finding religious people more persuasive than irreligious people is your prerogative

No, it is base on known evidence.i am not forcing you to accept the challenge but a way of telling you my position of rejecting the views of atheism is not ignorance but evidence. .

Focus on the merits of whatever is being argued rather than the pointless digressions. The thread started straying when you employed the "appeal to authority" fallacy and started talking about Carl Sagan and whatnot and trying to claim Einstein as a theist. Focus on a line of argument and stop straying.[/quote

You quoted me base on this....and you find it heated to stand when you realise you are not talking to someone like you.

If you feel heated and cannot stand it. you may use the right door.

Obi1kenobi:
I've made my point about Einstein. No point going round in circles over conjecture.

Even when it is is base on personal bias. Continue.

Loool.... Sophistry at its peak. What does any of this have to do with the simple fact Greek people are not worshiping and sacrificing and consecrating to their old gods today, and those old beliefs are today nothing but entertaining mythology for children's stories and Hollywood and those old temples are just tourist sites? As far as their old gods are concerned, they are atheists to their old gods, while being Christian today. Simples.

who cares if they stop worshipping Zeus and Apollo. My bone of argument here is they do not regard it non existence (except the athiest)In fact the Christian/Israelite perspective on Zeus is that he is a real demon, along with all the other pagan gods. If you want evidence of this, there are graven images of him with horns. Same with Aphrodite and Shiva, who had crescent moons on their heads in many of their images, which could serve as horns in a pinch.

More sophistry. Are you interested in cogent arguments or verbose wordplay? You made an appeal to authority (a classic fallacy, since you like talking about fallacies) of scientists and philosophers who are theists and basically suggested I must be ignorant not to follow the philosophy of these people, and I pointed out to you the existence of several brilliant scientists and philosophers who are atheist, and following your train of logic, your rejecting their belief system must also make you ignorant.

You are unneccasry using this fallacy anyhow without understanding where it suppose to be used.... number 1 fallacy , there is nothing like believe system among atheist. You will have use the word veiw. And I am not following their veiw because it does not appeal to me, i am rejecting their veiw because it does not work . (That is a position of knowledge and not ignorance) I do comparism a lot. Now I challenge you to provide the best known mind in science or philosophy that is an atheist and let me provide one that is religious toward God and the non God concept. Maybe by so doing, you will find why I find the religious scholar more amazing than the non religious folks.

Oh, and you're not here to learn. By your argument style, you're here to shove down preconceived notions down people's throats. Nothing you've argued shows you're opening to learning anything other than what you already believe.

Everyone is free to talk about is own opinion. You are free to use your subjective thought
My mission is to robb mind and juxtapose if my existing idea still sound valid. And all what you have done is letting me acknowledge I hold a treasure.

Obi1kenobi:
Nothing he said there validated your point. He used "God" as a metaphor for nature because it gave more poetry to the expression of his wonderment and puzzlements. Again, it's just wishful thinking on your part. I didn't say there was anything wrong with it. But asserting it as a fact that Einstein would rather be theist than atheist is an utterly groundless claim. He severally denounced the notion of a personal anthropomorphic divine being, which is what is required to be a theist.

Einstein used the word God because he believed in God. Here is how he defines God (sound more like Yoruba tradition)

I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists.

The firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as “pantheistic
And you saying nothing in those speech validate my premises is personal bias. Anyway you are free to go with your opinion.

Really? What difference is that? Again, your average Greek does not worship a god called Zeus. Or Athena. Or Ares. Or Apollo. Or anything of the sort even though they are proud of their history and mythologies and standing temples there remain part of their heritage and history and attracts tourists. They see these are purely mythologies today even though they once seriously worshiped and sacrificed to these gods. Today, they are atheist to those gods and those former mythologies of their gods are now just stories for children and Hollywood action plots and figures.

Myths were not just stories, they were the models for human behavior. They taught people how to live; the consequences of right and wrong.

Though told via worlds of gods and kings, many of the myths apply to everyday people and everyday life. And many still apply today, precisely because they are timeless paradigms. And those who are smart had annexed the benefit of this myth to better their life. The Greek might not worshiped zeus today, but is not rejected as it well acknowledge

You're not making much sense here. Their are plenty of brilliant atheist scientists and plenty of religious ones. There are many great atheist philosophers, just as there are religious ones. Though modern cutting-edge scientists overwhelmingly lean atheist. If you say it would be ignorant not to consider the musings of religious philosophers and scientists, then it's equally ignorant to ignore that of atheist thinkers. Which makes it rather pointless and pretty much useless to appeal to the authority of learned religious people, as if all learned philosophers and accomplished scientists are theists.

learning from people of like mind is the by-product of comparison. It stays deep inside each of us more than those who will do not share similar minds .I personally love the concept of religion and I find it logical to borrow from people that share the like minds with me especially those of high accomplishment. If there is no mentorship, there will be no education.

Even pratically, listen carefully to two people talking with each other. You will invariably observe that main .component of discussion is based upon learning by comparism. .

I will say that if one drops ability to learn from each other then there is nothing to speak about. ...

Hope you will see you do not do a proper thought out before coming with this excuse. ..

Obi1kenobi:
And Einstein also said:

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal god is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being."

and said:

"From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist. ... It is always misleading to use anthropomorphical concepts in dealing with things outside the human sphere—childish analogies. We have to admire in humility the beautiful harmony of the structure of this world—as far as we can grasp it, and that is all."

and said:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

and said:

"A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves."

As it will be useless pointing/quoting out the evidence supporting its assertion on God and religion ( You can find it yourself) . even some of the quote you quoted are validating my point. You must have missed that. What I found fascinitatng about him is he believes in something higher than physics.and that is the premise of my argument.

He once said that, ""I want to know how God create this world, am not interested in this or that phenomenon, I want to know the reasons behind it and all the rest are history"" (i am quoting from memory , might not really be what you find online)but it basically the same.

He believed in physics, but he also believed in God which was something greater than man. For him, the way he would think about both meant to anthropomorphize God by attributing a mind to a deity. He would not be interested in philosophical or religious connotations of why the world was created but in the more physically concrete question how it was created



[

Einstein was never close to being a theist. As I said, he was something inbetween a pantheist and agnostic. Claiming he'd rather be a theist than atheist is just fanciful thinking. Einstein did criticize militant atheists a lot because his scientific community was filled with them and he disdained their cynicism and arrogance and mockery of religious people. This has nothing to do with his own personal beliefs.

what is wrong in wishful thinking? I still repeat Einesten will choose theism to atheism if given the options .his rejection of atheism is not only base on political reasons , it is also base on scientific ground. Yes Albert might have criticized religion but it will found it absurd to replace it with atheism.

Zeus/Jupiter is a Greco-Roman god. The overwhelming majority of today's Greeks and Italians do not believe in a god of thunder called Zeus/Jupiter even though all of them are well acquainted with the mythologies of the classical Greeks and ancient Romans. You know this, but you'd choose to argue for the sake of arguing even when you know it's horseshiit.

There is diffrence between I do not believe it and I do not worship it. You may be overlapping here and there.

Many "great minds" consider every single theist as raving lunatics and think your opinion doesn't count. So appealing to authority telling me about "many great minds" doesn't carry much meaning. 92% of the members of the elite American National Academy of Sciences reject theist belief:
https://www.nature.com/articles/28478
I don't care much what great minds believe. My convictions are my own.

pile of Hot trash,
From Carl Sagan to Stephen Hawking to Neil deGrasse Tyson, people turn to great minds of science to help them understand the universe.

Hawking came out definitively on the matter ("I'm an atheist,", but Sagan and Tyson famously veer agnostic. ("Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence?" Sagan once asked, and Tyson has said that "the existence of God is a scientific hypothesis like any other." What about Albert Einstein? Despite his most famous quote about religion, it still a Spinoza kind of idea.


Just like like the numbers of highest receiver of noble laurel in science having religion affiliation are more than non religion.

It will be too ignorant of me not to consider the idea of people the society hold in high esteem when it comes to contribution to the development of humanity ....

budaatum:
Of course. As is everyones', except when they speak objectively.

i am reluctant to flap your ass tonight....maybe you will not go Scot free next you do it..

budaatum:
A classic show of irrational unreasoning!

You do it a lot vaxx! Maybe its innate in you.

Your opinion Buddha,

budaatum:
You really must think I'm Internet age like you.
You are funny.

what is that suppose to mean?

johnydon22:
Interesting.

So far, this reply doesn't help anymore than the previous. It asserts a claim that lack of faith is irrational or ignorance but doesn't really show how lack of faith can be driven to connote that assumed conclusion

if you don't have proof for either side and you have no bias, wouldn't the most rational opinion be ambivalence And if you are ambivalence, Will it not be rational to cure it, since it is caused by a simple “LACK OF CLARITY”.You can get rid of it by “GETTING CLARITY”.that’s all.

So, the question still stands; On what ground is lack of faith ignorance?

simple, because faith is all that it needs to have knowledge of God.

Athiest claim there is no God because there is no compeling evidence.. But for you to be bold to reject this claim, you must be speaking from knowledge which means the said athiest must have known everything since the beginning of time, must have checked every nook and corner of the vast (infinite) universe, must known everything that exists, must have studied every bit evidence that has been produced or will ever be produced, to unambiguously reached the absolutely correct conclusion: there is no God. But as for theist , he needs not to know but a leap of faith.

But even if that is the case for atheist - doesn't that imply that the atheist who made this superb claim is himself/herself God? Thereby contradicting the basic premise of atheism (There is no God) which is base on ignorance.

2nd: Assuming i want to dance with you a bit and say lack of faith equals ignorance or irrationality. The question it begs are:

Does this lack of faith only apply to lack of faith in God or does it apply lack of faith in something else or is it simply, lack of faith?

The bone of argument here is atheism lack faith in the existence of God , anything you are bringing to it is a mere conjecture

if someone lacks faith in God but has some form of faith for some other thing, is this person irrational?

If someone has faith in God but lacks faith for some other thing (no matter what that thing is) is this also irrational?

The lack of faith here is limited to God, atheism does not mean lack of faith in the existence of everything but God. The faith we are talking here is limited to God.

budaatum:
Which elite folk describe Buddhism as akin to atheism?

Get a book and read budah