₦airaland Forum

ScepticalPyrrho:
Its because I lack reasons to believe. Atheism doesn't contradict itself... Like I said before... I do not subscribe to religious claims because of the lack of proofs...

I can only argue to refute a theistic argument formed on the basis of moralist or teleological arguments

I fall under both categories you're trying very hard to distinguish. However, it doesn't change the meaning of atheism.

ScepticalPyrrho:
There is no problem with the definition of atheism, there are only reasons for lack of belief in God(s), in other words, being an atheist.

ScepticalPyrrho:
If I can see this God or gods, we wouldn't be talking about believe, would we?

NUELOJEI17:
A long time ago,the erudite scholar, Thomas Aquinas wrote a letter to a monk on the steps to becoming an intellectual. and here they are
1. Enter through the rivers and not immediately the sea.
master that which is easier before you tackle the more difficult ones.
2.Be slow to speak
3.Don't frequent noisy places
4. Live a good moral life
5. pray
6.Love the space in which you study
7.Be pleasant to all people
8. Don't worry about the affairs of others
9.Don't be overly familiar with someone, since it breeds contempt and take away from study
10.Don't spend too much time reflecting on the work and deeds of worldly people
11.Above all else,flee frequent conversation.
12.Follow in the steps of those who are good
13. Too much talk rids one of virtue
14.Don't worry about who you learn from
15. Commit to memory whatever worthwhile comes from your teacher. memorize and ponder upon it.
hope u av learnt one or two from the great scholar?
now my question remains,if we adhere to all this,won't life be extremely boring?
or is a boring life a sine qua non for intelligence? is that why most first class students are boring?
share your thoughts here

boringnigerian:
@ bolded, if we go by this premise, then almost all of us are atheists on some level because we believe that the gods other people worship are either false or don't exist.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Vaxx
Please get books on philosophy, read them with the intent to learn about the history of learning or knowledge.

The argument for the existence of God is supposed to be a philosophical engagement, and not a contest between atheists and theists...

This is something you and felixomor need to understand.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Philosophical engagement marked the beginning of learning, and reasoning without bias, prejudice or dogmas. Before the advent of philosophy, religious claims and answers were considered conclusive and best explanation. But the quest to know more about our cosmos without relying on religious beliefs marked the beginning of philosophy and science consequently emerged being the most reliable aspects of reality we can claim to know...

Nevertheless, reasoning (logical reasoning) was employed in presenting speculations and hypothesis which became an acceptable method for knowing more about the universe... However, speculative answers as to the origin of the universe was the major engagement of early philosophers like Aristotle, Plato, etc. Scientific studies, which is an observable and verifiable aspect of our reality was developed into what we have it today - a product of phillosiphy... not religion; as religious claims are considered conclusive and "divine."

People who aren't properly educated about the origin of learning as we have it today, fall victim of holding unto dogmatic(illogical claims) posits which were first neglected for the philosophical enterprice that has yielded more understanding of this universe.

Learning and studying different disciplines was a necessity for us to grasp, to the best of our knowledge, what this existence is about.

But somehow people still manage to fixate religious beliefs into gaps in our knowledge so far - forgetting where we were and how far we've come so far since the first philosophers of our employed sound reasoning, not dogmas, in the quest to understanding the universe. Also, we forget to rely on our best and universally accepted truths... The scientific truths... For unraveling what it is we are yet to know.

I still don't get how a religious person would claim to know anything about logic in a public forum like this... Religion never allowed independent thinking... Religious doctrines and cultural wisdom are not the same. Rather, it only contains fallacies and dogmas.

Thanks to philosophy, men now know the world is spherical and not flat.. We know the sun isn't Ra or Vishnu... We know the earth is older than what a Jewish book written by illiterates says it is... We know that the earth or man isn't the centre of creation... We know that a woman cannot conceive without male sperms introduced to her womb somehow... We know that thunder strike isn't from the hammer of Thor or mouth of Sango... We know that the rains are not tears of the gods...

But my friend... here we are arguing about something we wish for and not something we know.

AgentOfAllah:
Vaxx, as I've demonstrated above, you can pick issues with many a standard word in the English language. Many linguists do, in fact, but such debates are conceptually pedantic, because changing the word doesn't change what it describes. I may decide to start calling you a brown man, which would be technically more accurate, but it won't help anybody understand what I mean. In fact, people may believe I'm referring to an Indian subcontinental, so I would have succeeded in confusing people even though I was technically correct. So, to convey the meaning I want, I choose the words I feel most suitably describe it. This is why I've rejected your attempt to redefine what I am. I know you don't like being called pagan, so I call you a traditional diviner.
I prefer to be seen as the thing the word atheist presently describes, so let it be so, thank you!

AgentOfAllah:
Vaxx, as I've demonstrated above, you can pick issues with many a standard word in the English language. Many linguists do, in fact, but such debates are conceptually pedantic, because changing the word doesn't change what it describes. I may decide to start calling you a brown man, which would be technically more accurate, but it won't help anybody understand what I mean. In fact, people may believe I'm referring to an Indian subcontinental, so I would have succeeded in confusing people even though I was technically correct. So, to convey the meaning I want, I choose the words I feel most suitably describe it. This is why I've rejected your attempt to redefine what I am. I know you don't like being called pagan, so I call you a traditional diviner.
I prefer to be seen as the thing the word atheist presently describes, so let it be so, thank you!

hopefulLandlord:
Aarrrggghh!!!!!!!! okay

AgentOfAllah:
If that's your reply, you apparently don't understand it. Read it again!

hopefulLandlord:
@ bolded

Kindly read my post again and see some words that now mean opposite of what it originally meant

johnydon22:
I think the new trend here is, open any silly thread based on false premises and inaccurate assumptions about subjects you know nothing of, then base your arguments on the premise of this false assumption plus a personally conceived silly definition.

then base your question on these false premise, assumption and definition.

And expect people to answer your idiocy, expect people to answer your own misconceptions, lack of proper information, jumper assumptions and personal false premises taken as truth.

It can only frustrate the shit out of you if you try to indulge especially for someone like the OP who seem to have some form of cognitive impairment, Just read the conversation with AgentOfAllah on this thread, my patience doesn't run that deep.

So what i do most of the time is just ignore silly threads.

The very OP doesn't even make any sense, he curls out two types of atheism straight out of his ass then expect you to come answer his own silly misconceptions and false premises.

damn!!! i cannot come and kill myself.

AgentOfAllah:
Vaxx, very carefully, read this entry again.

hopefulLandlord:
You're committing a fallacy called Etymological Fallacy The etymological fallacy is a genetic fallacy that holds that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning

but there are various examples of words today that meant something slightly different originally and some that actually contradicts its original meaning

The word hound originally simply meant "dog" in general. This usage is now archaic or poetic only, and hound now almost exclusively refers to dogs bred for hunting in particular.

The meaning of a word may change to connote higher status, as when knight , originally "servant" like German Knecht , came to mean "military knight" and subsequently "someone of high rank".

Conversely, the word knave originally meant "boy" (as the equivalent German Knabe ) and only gradually acquired its meaning of "person of low, despicable character".

The word lady derives from Old English hlæf-dige ("loaf-digger; kneader of bread" ), and lord from hlafweard ("loaf-ward; ensurer, provider of bread" ). No connection with bread is retained in the current meaning of either word.

AgentOfAllah:
Yes, it is a misnomer started by other people who were eager to label people they didn't understand. If you study the evolution of words, you'll see that quick labels tend to stick, then they end up being fantastic placeholders for the concepts they initially wrongfully described.
It's the same reason you'll be called a "black" man or a "pagan", whereas the words "pagan" and "black" have very different original meanings than what they describe in present context.

"Atheist" literally means someone "without god", but descriptively, it is now understood to describe someone who is sceptical of god's existence, so yes, I am an atheist.

JackBizzle:
We should compile the most stupid threads on the relifion section and vote for the worst in december for the end of the year party.

Cc hahn, hopefullandlord, johnydon22......

rekinomtla:
There's only one type of atheist - the foolish satanic one. Foolish atheism is the only one that defines what an atheist actually is, it's perfectly captures what being an atheist means. Moral, Scientific, Coward atheism are just projections of their foolishness. This is because reason and rationality is thrown out the door when we becomes an satanic atheist, the foolish atheist pursues sex, money and power instead of pursuing truth and knowledge. Believe in reason and rationality atheists not foolishness. Same for their Islamic counterparts.

ScepticalPyrrho:
Because they are...
Maybe you should read the history of philosophy so we can be on the same playing field.

AgentOfAllah:
I called you a herbalist to make a point: Don't redefine people who have not asked to be redefined. I know what I am! You called me a skeptical agnostic. "Atheism" is the word the describes anybody that expresses skepticism about the existence of god.

Proudgorgeousga:
There is a reason why you aren't a Christian or Muslim na

ScepticalPyrrho:
I wasn't trying to disprove the existence of God. You asked why I don't believe and I responded by telling you that religious posits are all dogmatic hence my lack of belief in any of the gods.

I cannot present a proof for something non-existent but I'm submitting my position as an atheist.

AgentOfAllah:
Because you're a herbalist who confuses himself with how to label people instead of how to understand people.

AgentOfAllah:
I'm not a skeptic agonist because I am not skeptically agonising over anything. But since this is a labeling contests, permit me to label you a confused herbalist.

umarsheks6:
But whosoever turns away from My remembrance, his shall be a life of narrowness, and on the Resur- rection Day We shall raise him blind.’ He shall say, ‘O my Lord, why have you raised me blind, and I was wont to see?’ God shall say, ‘Even so it is. Our signs came unto you, and you forgot them; and so today you are forgotten’ (Ta Ha, 20:124–126)

ScepticalPyrrho:
I do not see the problem in the definition.

I argue against the moralist proof for God's existence. And also the teleological arguments for God's existence.

My position as an atheist doesn't shift, it is the religious proofs that shifts.

AgentOfAllah:
Believing in god hasn't proven useful to me, and disbelieving hasn't proven disastrous either.

ScepticalPyrrho:
I also hold this view...

It is the most reliable form of proof as we have come to find all through human history.

Besides the moralists argument can also be directed towards providing evidences for past sin and punishments as proofs for a "God of justice".

umarsheks6:
even u wuld b questioned so don't tink u r excluded
and if u die like dis den u will sufer till eternity den u remember d pple who were warning u but u turned deaf ears

AgentOfAllah:
There is just as much evidence for invisible ninja as there is for any imperceptible version of god. Can you tell me why you don't see a need to believe there're invisible ninjas in your eyes?

ScepticalPyrrho:
All of the dogmatic positions and suppositions commonly held by various religious groups.