₦airaland Forum

tillaman:
Well actually I seriously don't adopt any of the church doctrines and all, I barely go to church though am morally conscious, friends call me pagan and stuffs, is there a difference between an atheist and a pagan I really wanna know because both don't believe if there's a God, I question that belief too buh I don't know what to identify with

pagan is different from atheist . pagan is a coined name given to dose who do not subscribe to abrahimic god idea. i am one. it actually mean illiterate or uncivilized. for example, the traditionalist are pagan to the Christian.

budaatum:
If he can't provide stats why make the statement in the first place? Surely the statement must be based on some sort of evidence!

Provide evidence or don't lie!

no one is lying , i have provided more than five links to support it.

Seun:


I don’t believe in hell either. I certainly don’t believe that eternal torment is the appropriate punishment for any lie, unlike the author of Revelation.

hopefullanlord, what will the opposite of this called . blank or neutral?

hopefulLandlord:
depends on what kind of belief is being proposed to the person, I'd say its possible

it is not gonna be impossible, take for example. your palm, it has back and front. can you separate the two? or take for example the idea of a mountain? can you separate the valley and the mountain?


check budaatum reply with ronpet

hopefulLandlord:
yes? there's neutrality, isn't it?

good, you answer the question. a neutral fellow will either be here nor there. is that possible?

hopefulLandlord:
So how would you know if you meet one? what are the signs that'll tell you "This dude is truly blank"?

someone who actually do not hold both positive and opposite position. is it possible?

Lionbutterfly:
Or a blank unbeliever.

thanks for the correction

hopefulLandlord:
What does someone have to be or what characters does the person have to exhibit for you to think they're "Blank"?

i have not seen any blank unbeliever

hopefulLandlord:
Religious kind of belief? yes!

you do not subscribe to religious belief but you are definitely not an unbeliever? do not look at it in a christian or Islam perspective. look at it within your own understanding.... you are definitely not blank

hopefulLandlord:
Why do you say that?

Are you without a believe?

winner01:
Hi Vaxx, ill rather call it a truth website. I wouldn't call Wikipedia an atheist website simply because its co owned by sworn atheist Jimmy Wales, with numerous proofs of Wikipedia's bias on certain topics such as intelligent design, abortion, homosexuality and several others. Truth can be gotten from anywhere. Answersingenesis is also a great source of truth, you can always rely on the pointers to evidence. Also I think you waste your time debating with this person, he's been on this for years and I don't think he's any less angry with God. You can check for proof in some of my threads. The real deal is outside. Souls are being won on the outside, people are waking up to true Christianity, don't waste your time with this guy.

Do you think hopefullandlord is an unbeliever? he is just being disturbed with question that he genuinely need answer. no one is an unbeliever , our believe system may differ.

hopefulLandlord:
Apologies if you feel my posts made mockery of you as none of my posts are intended to mock whom I'm debating with. I may mock the argument/the idea being held by whom I'm debating though and those aren't unintentional at all

No qualms bro. we should be open to knowledge, no one is above it

you will never learn anything, if you already developed a closed mind on a subject, particularly when you wanted to mock your opponent mental capacity. AFTER GOOD FIVE ARTICLES HAD BEING GIVEN TO YOU, you still reject it. you want me to be listing A and b .... when you will be the same person to argue that is not objective. lol...


All the articles i provide buttress fax claim. that is all

you can not learn anything from your opponent, if you have developed the mind of mocking. . even after

hopefulLandlord:
Why are you lying again even though the evidence to the contrary is a few posts before yours? below is Faxole's post, take note of the bolded



The list has been my argument from the get go and I didn't even bother visiting any of the links you threw at me except the link you called the list which happened to be a deleted page

BRO AM NOT GONNA ARGUE THIS. IT IS OK.

hopefulLandlord:
sir, the links you've been giving are not what your claim is about so I rightly ignored them. Conservapedia/Wikipedia argument I ignored after it seems to drag this discourse off course

I did not reject faxole giving names, I said we didn't debate it together. He's also come in and said he never gave such names so where's your god now?

I try hard to stay on topic and face one discussion at a time

have you genuinely study the links yourself? PLEASE BE SINCERE

you did not ignored conservepedia/wikipedia argument, if you did,you will not mentions the moniker you discuss the issue with , you actually wanted to make the evidence fall flat in which i correct you.

so giving references equals to stay out of topics? I DO NOT GET YOU BRO

fax already confirm the names of the atheist himself? so where will you hide now? yes he did not give names of the atheist that have
commit suicide but names of the atheist attempting to commit suicide .

hopefulLandlord:
cc vaxx

the guy has done the justice,

Faxole:
I listed Atheists who experienced depression and extreme psychological crises when contemplating the lack of meaning of life. I didn't mention any atheist who attempted suicide. I said I had read of one who actually committed suicide, but I forgot his name. I only said statistically, atheists tend to make more suicide attempts than religious people.

This argument on suicide wasn't between me and you. It was between me and Martinez. The argument I had with you was on christian values and how it had influenced western culture and the Nigerian society.

thanks for the justice

hopefulLandlord:
So after all is said and done, after pages upon pages of asking you the same question and you throwing an answer to a different question, you're now admitting you have no such list?

Tell Faxole, he might save you the embarrassment

bro you are the one being embarrassed here. first you said conservapedia is unreliable, which i throw evidence into your face that it use the same citation techniques like wikipedia,and if you arguing on the neutrality, the same can also be said about wikipedia. you cough it in

Again you reject that fax actually gives names. i also throw it to your face your are lying again. have you seen yourself. stop being unnecessary arrogant. am here to learn , i nor dey do too know. I HAVE GIVEN YOU ABOUT FIVE LINKS HERE. you are still asking the same question within the same circle.

hopefulLandlord:
below is your post which I challenged


take not of the bolded

if its so available online as you're claiming, then Faxole's deleted posts shouldn't be the only thing you have

see yourself, when evidence is thrown at your face, you are looking for another option to avoid it. well i do not stereotype, i do not like picking on names. mine is to give evidence base on proof. which i did. fax is here himself.

Lionbutterfly:
I was on that thread too and I saw the names he mentioned but did not commit them to memory and you should know me by now that if I remembered those names I personally would not wait for vaxx to drop them ,I would throw them at you like grenades.

Faxole mentioned those names and you never denied that statement but went on to ask him about countries and stuff like that. You know how to pick your arguments and I am sure you knew that if you had gone down the road of those names with him you would fail woefully same as you are doing here by asking for a list while trying to avoid the numerous scientific research submissions on the same matter thrown at you.

i do not want to include you, he did not trust you. thanks

hopefulLandlord:
no you haven't! you still haven't given any list!! all you've done is raise another question and defeat it while pretending you've addressed the main question

If Faxole did give names and you know those names, nothing stops you from giving it too, it seems you're hiding behind Faxole's deleted posts as a way to avoid admitting you have no such list you claimed to have

may be marthins19 will not be bias or faxhole himself will confirm this issue . l wish i can give you the names as fax name it, but i can not have access to it. i am sure you aware. but you decide to keep shut about it budaatum can testify? budaatum hope you read the post of fax with marthin19 when he gave the names of scholar who went on suicide mission when they conclude that GOD is not real.these moniker i mention are atheist

hopefulLandlord:
I still haven't seen any list you're talking about

BTW are you not Talking about the same Faxole? its a pity the thread is deleted but all I challenged him for are 2 things

1. Nigeria morals is being influenced mainly by Christianity

2. USA is founded on Christian principles

I then supported Darkchild's argument about alcohol and homosexuality then debated Emannystone on Introverts are sad and lonely claim. I always pick my battles so I usually know exactly what I'm arguing for or against.

I hope Faxole or anyone else (asides the attention seeker of course) can correct me if I did argue against suicide with Faxole on that thread

All these are still beside the point, Let's assume Faxole and I did argue suicide, how does that stop you giving the list you claim you have links to? why are you dragging this on and on and on?

the thread is down, the guy made mention of names of prominent atheist philosopher that went on a suicide mission just for the fact that they accept GOD did not exist when engaging martins, you challenge him on another point which he raised concerning the foundation of USA . martins19 testify? i have done justice to your questin enough bro?

hopefulLandlord:
I still haven't seen any list you're talking about

BTW are you not Talking about the same Faxole? its a pity the thread is deleted but all I challenged him for are 2 things

1. Nigeria morals is being influenced mainly by Christianity

2. USA is founded on Christian principles

I then supported Darkchild's argument about alcohol and homosexuality then debated Emannystone on Introverts are sad and lonely claim. I always pick my battles so I usually know exactly what I'm arguing for or against.

I hope Faxole or anyone else (asides the attention seeker of course) can correct me if I did argue against suicide with Faxole on that thread

All these are still beside the point, Let's assume Faxole and I did argue suicide, how does that stop you giving the list you claim you have links to? why are you dragging this on and on and on?

the thread is down, the guy made mention of names of prominent philosopher that went on a succide mission just for the fact that they accept GOD did not exist when engaging martins, you challenge him on another point which he raised concerning the foundation of USA . martins19 testify? i have done justice to your questin enough bro?

Lionbutterfly:
You must be salt and I, water because it seems if you quote me directly you would obviously melt

Vaxx and I have a "mental" understanding. I never asked him to quote me as all I did was provide him with links as my understanding of his position which you are shamelessly lying to yourself about.

True men stand up to their fellow men and quote them directly. You are obviously still an adolescent.

i really like your gut. and i think these are one of the reason people may not consider atheism as a right choice. keeping malice online for about one year is not a good idea to me i think.

hopefulLandlord:
The onus is always on the claimant, that's the sensible way a discourse should go otherwise one can make bullsheet claim and say the challenger should be the one to do the searching. I thought this much is obvious to anyone who's debated before....

You're the one to bring the list or give link to the list

hopefulland, this is what i am doing since. do not let me see you as an inconsistent fellow. you are not arrogant am sure these are the links again. there is correlation between atheism and suicide ...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/108625/more-religious-countries-lower-suicide-rates.aspx

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303

https://www.pitzer.edu/academics/faculty/zuckerman/Ath-Chap-under-7000.pdf

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2303



if you want names ,visit the topic you have with fox . or should i post the link here?

hopefulLandlord:
Here is the list I've been asking for again and again



This is it and I'm asking what the list is and what it shows but all you've done so far is google and google

WHERE IS THE LIST?

so why do you not do the needful. i said it is available online and not offline. am sure you are not offline?

hopefulLandlord:
Bros, stop running around and strawmanning, WHERE IS THE LIST?
That's the Genesis of this discussion and all these Wikipedia Conservapedia argument are beside the point

you said there's a list, where is it?

what list do you want me to post again? that article is academia and individual names are protected. so you are expecting me to be listing A and b?

hopefulLandlord:
No its not

what's laughable is not realising how awful Conservapedia is, Wikipedia is a lot more neutral about its articles while Conservapedia already has a goal in mind; this makes a lot of difference when you cycle between both and see how biased one is over the other; Conservapedia blames Liberals, atheists, non Christians for everything bad while Christianity is whitewashed as possible, all their mods are conservative Christians who ban anyone attempting to bring some neutrality and sense into the site

I'm not telling you to trust Wikipedia completely, its not infallible but the difference is very clear and only an ignorant person would bring it up


Dunno about you but i got "Page not found" when I clicked the link

the bone of argument is how reliable is wikipedia and conserverpedia. both of them are open to vandalism , so where dose neutrality come in here. i can today go ahead and edit wikipedia. i can post a false information on my own account. so tell me where neutrality take place here? both of them are open sites , one feels wiki is bias and decided to create her own page to address it. i expect you as a clever individual to check the citation and see if it is truly reliable instead of you condemning it entirely. that will be a complete bias to me. or do you want me to show you a lot of false information on wikipedia? to me, only an arrogant fellow will continue arguing the same issue when the correction is being throw to his face. both of them are not reliable. simple.



you can use the advance search on to verify?


both this the abstract of the article, i can not post all...

''OBJECTIVE: Few studies have investigated the association between religion and suicide either in terms of Durkheim's social integration hypothesis or the hypothesis of the regulative benefits of religion. The relationship between religion and suicide attempts has received even less attention.
METHOD: Depressed inpatients (N=371) who reported belonging to one specific religion or described themselves as having no religious affiliation were compared in terms of their demographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS: Religiously unaffiliated subjects had significantly more lifetime suicide attempts and more first-degree relatives who committed suicide than subjects who endorsed a religious affiliation. Unaffiliated subjects were younger, less often married, less often had children, and had less contact with family members. Furthermore, subjects with no religious affiliation perceived fewer reasons for living, particularly fewer moral objections to suicide. In terms of clinical characteristics, religiously unaffiliated subjects had more lifetime impulsivity, aggression, and past substance use disorder. No differences in the level of subjective and objective depression, hopelessness, or stressful life events were found.

CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior in depressed inpatients. After other factors were controlled, it was found that greater moral objections to suicide and lower aggression level in religiously affiliated subjects may function as protective factors against suicide attempts. Further study about the influence of religious affiliation on aggressive behavior and how moral objections can reduce the probability of acting on suicidal thoughts may offer new therapeutic strategies in suicide prevention''( source from the articule)

hopefulLandlord:
Conservapedia makes article with an end in mind, gather unreliable and dubious sources to make it happen and make up sources when there's none. This is entirely different from Wikipedia and putting Wikipedia on same level as Conservapedia is an insult to Wikipedia haha

YOU claimed there's a list not me, you're now running around when that claim is challenged

on a side note, do you see how asinine it is when the OP insulted the other person for asking for something to buttress what he claimed, you supported him and here you are claiming there's a list and you're not able to bring out such a list for the umpteenth time of asking

BTW I don't remember engaging faxole on suicide, I only challenged his claim about morality

i do not know how to engage this. go through this yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

The first thing to understand is that Wikipedia is not a static reference work its articles are constantly evolving. An article that is in good shape today may be in poor shape tomorrow, and vice versa. The second thing is that Wikipedia quality is very variable – the spectrum ranges from truly outstanding articles to complete nonsense, along with anything in between just like conservapedia,The are both open source. so you arguing in support of wikipedia is very laughable.

i do not know what you really want dude, but relax, will you read ? will you not throw another unwarranted question to me again?

the lists are here pls http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/12/2303

please visit your comment with fox, it seems you are forgeting

hopefulLandlord:
That source isn't reliable anywhere, a simple google search of "is conservapedia reliable"? would show you not one article supporting them in the slightest except their own personal website attesting to their own reliability

I'm still asking for the list, not an article, you've been talking about. All you're doing so far is trying to change the topic

i am not changing the topic bro. i am only letting you know that both wiki and conservapedia are both subjected to the same standard of citations. yes it is not reliable just like wikipedia. but am using it for the sake of mental stability. so if you reject conservapdia , then stop using wikipedia as your souce of references.

where on earth do you want me to get the list of all atheist that went on a suicide mission? i can only provide you prominent acclaimed atheist, which i think fox already did that last time you engage him

hopefulLandlord:
Please be serious, nobody takes that stupid website serious, not even their dubious sources which most to as don't carry any weight

I'm still waiting for that list you're talking about

do not be bias. if you keep your trust in Wikipedia then confirm. They use citations just like wikipedia. Check the citations and see if those are reliable . check the references they give if it is not reliable

i do not do stereotyping, i can only give you source which i did