₦airaland Forum

chemystery:
Hmmmm...A perspective that you only know about. Can I see it please?

this is you own writing...here is no dogmatism in atheism. Everyone with their own perspective about life.

chemystery:
Where did i claim to be a moral atheist?

you are subjetive in your perspective....

AgentOfAllah:
Personally, I hate labels. They caricaturise their victims! But if I must be labelled based on beliefs, then I am an agnostic (I don't know if god exists) atheist (I don't believe in god's existence).

Asking me why I think there is no need to believe in god is the same as asking me why I think there is no need to believe that invisible ninjas live in my eyes. Simple: I see no need to! The question really should be why you think I should believe in god.

you are right... But for the purpose of this op...which simply state that atheism by definition is a problem... Which no one has been able to refute the claim.....you said you see no need...and I wannner know why....the invisible ninja may be a sort of help if there is evidence.... Not to derail the topic... Why do you see no need

ScepticalPyrrho:
I haven't rejected any God(s). I do not believe that any of the God(s) worshipped by religious folks exists as there is no reason to believe otherwise.

why do you belive there is no reasons to belive otherwise?... You can't escape the definition if you are an atheist...

chemystery:
Vaxx, atheism is simply the disbelief in any god. Any other thing you are saying or categorizing is simply based on assumption on other people's personal lifestyle that has NOTHING to do with atheism!

atheism is from the root word of Greek...meaning atheus ....without God....

My categorization is very logical...unless you can refute it

chemystery:
There is nothing like categorizing here. In morality, it is either you are good or bad whether you are an atheist, christian, Muslim, etc. So?

what my op is doing is simply giving the real definition of atheism....and yours is subjective.... Which simply contradict scientist atheist....how can bad be measure ,is it testable?so there is nothing like moral atheist which you claim you are? According to science definition.... There is nothing like bad or good

ScepticalPyrrho:
@vaxx,

What of an atheists who is simply an atheist... Someone who doesn't believe that any god(s) exists.

Do you have any questions for an atheists?

the questions why are you an atheist...or why do you reject God existence

chemystery:
There is no dogmatism in atheism. Everyone with their own perspective about life.

It is like saying Christians who engage in abortion are subscribing the dogmatic part of Christianity that supports abortion when actually there is none. You don't hence use the way of life of those individuals to categorize christianity or create a new Christian sect. Like Abortionic Christians

your Defination still fall under moral atheism...which categories every aspect of life as subjective... Pls read my op again for a better refuttal

AgentOfAllah:
Yep

if that is the case.....you do not fall under atheism dogmatism... You belive in god(evidence of faith) , you do not see the need to belive in one( skeptic) therefore you are labelled a skeptic agnostic ....any way why do you think there is no need...you answer here may change your labellings again?

AgentOfAllah:
Ever heard the aphorism: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

sure...is that the logic you follow?

chemystery:
You mean like the types that supports APC?
Better list all the types before we continue this journey

I am talking of dogma here.... You are telling me about political stuffs....what my op did was to divide the set of dogmatisms of atheism

AgentOfAllah:
I assume that by "god", you mean an all powerful creator of everything? If this is what you mean, then it is not true that I believe there is no god, I just don't see a need to believe there is one.

If you have a different definition of god, then we can have a discussion about whether I believe in its existence or not.

this is contradiction..... You believe there is god and still don't see a need to belive in one...am not getting you...

chemystery:
You are wrong. There are over a million types of atheist....

Those that were once Christians, those that were once Muslims, those that were atheists from birth, those that don't engage in arguments, those that are introverts, those that are extroverts, those that supports APC, those that supports PDP, those that are Chelsea fans, those that are Liverpool fans, those that are tribalistic, those that aren't, those that divorce their wives and those that doesn't...

So continue from there.

After listing all the types, then I can come in and comment

those types of atheist fall into moral atheism....those who reject God because of their former faith doctrine and religious perspective..

AgentOfAllah:
I don't know how this makes any sense to you! Questioning why a loving god would allow evil to exist in the world is a natural response to the claim that a loving, all powerful god exists who hates evil. Of course the question presupposes the existence of god, but that's an artefact of the claim itself, not an assumption by the questioner.
I could tell you there is a vampire sucking your blood right now, at 1 litre/min, and you will be apt to express your scepticism of that claim by asking: "why don't I feel dizzy, then?" Of course your question presupposes there's a vampire sucking your blood, but only because my claim suggests as much. It wouldn't make sense to say your question is blaming the vampire for not sucking your blood properly.


No atheist blames any god for evil. The questions about morality are an invitation to the proponents of a moral, all powerful god's existence, to consider the implications of their propositions. Such questions often use the definition of evil adopted by the proponent.


Exactly!!! How??



Conclusion:
- Your categorisation of atheism into scientific and moral strands is arbitrary and bizarre (I'm still confused)
- Atheists don't ask questions in isolation. Such questions are often the inexorable responses to propositions that a god with extraordinary attributes exists. It seems disingenuous to then claim that asking such questions implies that the skeptic means to blame the entity whose existence is in question.
- You claim scientific atheism contradicts moral atheism, but give no justification for this claim; and then conclude that atheism is an irrational position. It is not clear how you believe you've made any sense here.

To be honest, I don't understand your argument at all. It's all over the place, and very incoherent. Please refine what you are trying to accomplish, then we can properly discuss.

simple, before we go further....
Why do you believe there is no God....pls in a simple statement.....

If I ignore you...it is because you are not following the instruction.. And not because you are making sense.....

TheCarpenter:
@op

There is nothing like types of atheist.

You're either an atheist or not an atheist.

Abeg, dont comman stir up personal controversy

atheist is from the root greek word atheus ...meaning without god....for you to be balance in your opinion... It is either you base your believe on faith approach that god or gods do not exist on how religious portray it or how their scripture define it. ... Or because you are scientific incline ...which says the evidence most be emperical or measurable..


Whatever method you follow to reach the stage.... You will contradict yourself.. Ask me why?

Agentofallah, I will still reply to your hypothesis.... Ok...

TheCarpenter:
Suggest better books.

BTW, will still read that Darwin's own too, but suggest better ones too

it is logical to start from the theory propounder himself Charles Darwin...before reading any further books on it...why ? Charles Darwin presented the evolution explanations not because he wanted to refute faith but for academic and research development, he is neutral not an athesist nor religious(agnostic) and lastly he is a good orator... You will enjoy the book ...well expalned like you are reading a novel....one of the best science books I love reading..... Despite my background in art ..I found it easy to read........you can learn atheist books too if you desire.... And do not forget to have a clue of creationist so that you can make comparism....the world is for you to enjoy....never stop learning..... Till u die..

Wuminity:
Actually, menstruation is the periodic discharging of the menses, the flow of blood and cells from the lining of the uterus in females of humans 


hmm.... it's possible.

If an egg is fertilized, it travels to the uterus and implants itself, this is the start of pregnancy. when pregnant a person will not menstruate. If the fertilized egg does not implant it will be reabsorbed into the body or shed along with the uterine lining, if it did implant but the uterine lining shed anyway then this would be a miscarriage.



And it happens in two ways,
1) which is the implantation bleeding: implantation is the attachment of the fertilized ovum to the uterus wall, while implantation bleeding is a light bleeding from the vagina caused when a fertilized ovum attaches to the wall of the uterus.
this form of bleeding does not occur in every woman but only few,
implantation bleeding is not a real menses but is similar to real menses and the implantation may still be active after the bleeding.

2) Second is miscarriage:If you are asking about normal menstrual flow then the fertilized egg was not able to effectively attach to the lining of the uterus and/or was unable to send an HCG message to the ovary to continue producing progesterone. The fertilized egg (live or dead) would then flow out with the menstrual flow. Hence, the tiny zygote is lost with the period and dies.

thanks for your comprehensive explanation..... Am really enlightened

They are two types of atheist... Moral and scientists atheist....

Moral Atheism- objections to the existence of God when relating to moral issues i.e., gay rights, women's rights, abortion and all things therein related to the problem of evil

Scientific Atheism- objections to God when relating to scientific evidence.

My argument is base on one one point with several sub points.

1. One cannot be both a moral and scientific atheist.

This is because:

A. Moral Atheism doesn't actually exist.

Moral atheists like to cast blame on God for evil in the world. "Why would a loving and just God allow evil into the world?" This question supposes that God does exist. Atheism is the denial of God's existence. Moral Atheism is therefore contradictory.

A1. The moral atheist cannot define evil

Moral Atheism supposes that morality is subjective, yet often condemns people with a different set of moral codes. In order to blame God for evil, there must be a consensus on what is defined as evil yet the moral atheist cannot adequately define evil because he cannot support his definition with an original point.

B. Scientific Atheism contradicts moral atheism

This point is far more simple. Simply put, how can you cast blame for evil on something you claim doesn't exist?

Conclusion: atheism, be it a blend of moral and scientific atheism, or either individually, is far more irrational than a belief in God..

Note..

Any atheist accepting the challenge may refute every claim..

Any argument made by my opponent claiming religion is problematic, will be considered a strawman and thus ignored.

Insult and (i know it all )argument will be ignored....

bahaushe1:
Did God prescribe worshipping Him through idols? No. So the two can't be compared.

One has divine instruction to pray facing Ka'aba while the other has no such instruction.

the question is did Quran God prescribe worshiping him through our own self realisation.... No.... But this is the truth.....it is illogical for a beige race to tell me how to worshipped my creator.... Am a Yoruba by tribe black by race and we are not dumb...l.

I think the moderator has to close this thread.... Nothing is learn here again.....apart from insult .....am dissapointed in you guys...

Money or love spells are completely superstitious and the priests who promote them are just going to charge you for the ritual and monetarily exploit.

However, there are valid rituals that act as symbolic reminders to your subconscious and "programs" it; these rituals influence your subconcious so that your subconscious reinforces your efforts at the task at hand . it is what drives your behavior to manifest ambitions.

That is about as close as you get to a "magic spell." But you are still responsible for carrying out the task of acquiring money, courting a person's admiration for you, or whatever ambition you desire; there are no magic spells for this that will do the work for you. We have to get out of the miracle myth of abrahimic faith to accomplish goals or the false misunderstanding of Yoruba as being full of magic spells and other nonsense. Yes, you can receive the blessings of Olodumaré, but Olodumaré lives in you (ori-orun) and so in the end it is the God in you that brings the blessings to your life.

The Odu Ifa tells us to be like Shango, lord of fire, for fire "paves a way wherever it demands to go."

TheCarpenter:
Gonna do that bro.
BTW, this is ADEPETER2027 my ID got banned by anti-spam

whao....welcome back..

TheCarpenter:
I have this book you're talking about.

I really need to read it. Every since I downloaded it, I have never opened it

please do for The sake of knowledge

DoctorAlien:
I don't even know what you mean by closely related.

Anyway, I decline to read that fairytale. This below is enough reason:

"In the first edition of his book On the Origin of Species, Darwin said that he had no difficulty imagining a race of bears entering the water to catch fish and then slowly developing wider mouths, shorter legs, and longer tails, until they evolved by chance into the great whales."

Source: answersingenesis.org

bye....bye

DoctorAlien:
Well, this website below tells us that the ancestor looked a lot like a chimpanzee or gorilla.

http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-homo-pan-last-common-ancestor-03220.html

I like how you evolutionists sound so sure when you make proclamations about evolution.

I am not an evolutionist or creationist ...am a student of the two....I just love learning that is all...it doesn't matter who among the primate our ancestor really look like.....chimpanzees , gorillas , monkey , apes and human are all primate... But in a conclusion present human are more closely related with modern apes than any of the primate....


Get the AUTHOR book himself origin of species..... By the evolution theory propounder himself..Charles Darwin

DoctorAlien:
Well, a quick search will reveal to you that, allegedly, the "Last Common Ancestor of Humans and Apes Looked Like Gorilla or Chimpanzee."

What can we call sucheck a thing?

have you read Charles Darwin origin of species.... If not go and get a copy....no one really know how our proto primate look....i created a thread for this question....they are suggestion anyway....human are more closely related with mordarn apes than monkey,, gorilla and chimpazee...and that suggest our ancestor , proto primate ...may have similar feature of apes and human

DoctorAlien:
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/human-evolution/if-we-resemble-apes-does-that-mean-we-evolved-from-apes/

Anyone who has ever watched the monkeys and apes at a zoo couldn’t help but notice their resemblance to humans. By comparison, the bears in the zoo are not nearly as similar to humans as are the apes. Still, bears are warm-blooded mammals and thus are more similar to humans than are cold-blooded reptiles like the alligators. Alligators, however, do have legs and true lungs and thus are more similar to humans than are the fish. But even fish have bony vertebrae and thus are more similar to human than are the insects. And even insects are made up of many specialized cells and thus are more similar to humans than are the bacteria. Finally, all living things, including bacteria, have basically the same type of molecules that appear to be essential for life itself and share a common genetic code mechanism for their reproduction.

Clearly there is an underlying common theme to all of life. Inquisitive people will naturally wonder why this is so. Until the time of Darwin, over 130 years ago, most scientists considered the underlying commonality of all living animals to be evidence of the handiwork of their common Creator. It seemed quite reasonable to these great pioneers who established the foundations of nearly every branch of science that God would use the same underlying principles to design and create the various kinds of animals. After all, even human designers, builders, and artists, tend to manifest their distinctive approach in everything they create and build.

There are several possible reasons why certain animals are more similar to one another than they are to others, permitting them to be arranged into groups. Animals that live in a similar environment and eat similar food would be expected to have structural and even chemical similarities. Animals that live and move on land, for example, have a certain class of similarities based on the restrictions imposed by the natural terrain of our earth. Animals that live and swim in water have certain similarities necessary for aquatic locomotion and feeding. Animals that fly in the air have still other similarities dictated by the severe demands of flight. In the same manner, man-made machines designed to serve a common type of purpose share common features, despite their many differences. Consider the various modes of transportation designed by man. Most vehicles that run on land, from roller skates to freight trains, share a class of similarities based on wheels. Vehicles that move on water, from a canoe to a battleship, share basic similarities based on flotation. Vehicles that fly in the air, from hang gliders to the space shuttle, have similarities that are essential to flight.

Today, evolutionists insist that the underlying similarity of all animals, including man, and our ability to arrange and classify them into groups, is compelling evidence for their progressive evolution from a common ancestor. They insist that there is simply no other thinkable explanation for their similarities. Evolutionists argue further that the degree of similarity between any two animals attests to their degree of evolutionary “relatedness,” and thus how recently they separated from a common ancestor. They are quite certain, for example, that the similarities between apes and humans prove they evolved from a common ape-like ancestor “only” 2 or 3 million years ago. By comparison, evolutionists say we are far more distantly “related” to our insect “relatives.” The Living World exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo at one time had a sign by a dish of fruit flies that confidently declared, “Humans and flies had a common ancestor 630 million years ago.” This hypothetical “common ancestor” is not identified because no one has the slightest evidence of what it looked like, or even if it existed at all!

This belief, that similarities between animals can only be understood in terms of an evolutionary relationship, is the most fundamental axiom of evolution—almost all arguments for evolution depend upon it. Evolutionists do not feel compelled to prove their claim that similarity necessarily means common evolutionary ancestry—they assume it. Indeed, evolutionists never question or investigate whether evolution is true or not; rather they ask which animal evolved into which, and their answer is generally based on similarity! No scientist would ever succeed in getting funding from major federal or private sources to investigate if evolution has really occurred or not. The evolutionist Richard Leaky approached the National Geographic Society to get funding to look for the ape ancestors of man, not to investigate if man evolved from apes. It is interesting to note that when the Society gave Leaky his funds, he was warned: “If you find nothing you are never to come begging at our door again.” With this motivation, Leaky soon found 40 specimens of the “human ancestor,” Australopithecus, whose very name, by the way, means “Southern APE”! Most evolutionists are dead certain that this very apelike ape evolved into man because of certain arguable similarities to man in its teeth and pelvic bones. Perhaps you heard the story of the evolutionist who dug up a fossilized fragment of an ape’s jaw and promptly declared it to be an ancestor of man—he was so excited about the find he said, “I wouldn’t have seen it if I hadn’t believed it.”

One of the problems with the similarity equals evolutionary ancestry axiom is that evolutionists ignore it whenever it doesn’t fit their evolutionary scenarios. There are many instances of remarkable similarities between animals that evolutionists consider to be only distantly related. The eye of the squid, for example, is strikingly similar to the human eye. Sometimes almost the whole body and even the behavior of animals are obviously similar, and still evolutionists argue they are not closely related! For example, many of the Australian marsupials have strikingly similar counterparts to certain North American placental mammals. There are both marsupial and placental mammal versions of mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers. There is even evidence that there once were both marsupial and placental saber-toothed tigers! Yet evolutionists consider marsupials and placental mammals to be only distantly related because their mechanism of reproduction is so different. Evolutionists believe that the primitive ancestors of marsupial and placental mammals split off from a hypothetical common ancestor about 120 million years ago, long before there were mice, moles, rabbits, wolves, and badgers, and have been evolving separately ever since. How then did both these separate lines manage to come up with such similar animals?

Incredibly, evolutionists explain away amazing similarities between animals they consider to be only distantly related by simply invoking “convergent evolution.” Convergent evolution is the unobserved and unexplained process whereby two very different animals independently evolve into two very similar animals by an incredible run of countless lucky mutational coincidences extending over tens of millions of years! It seems that some folks will believe almost anything, as long as it doesn’t appear in the Bible.

evolution theory don't claim human evolve from apes...it only state we share common ancestors with them...they are called proto primate..... Sincerly speaking we have more similarities with monkey....

ToZaraWithaZ:
A fetus is NOT a member of society hence doesn't have any rights, so I see nothing INSTRINSICALLY wrong in abortion. But like everything else, it's not a matter of black and white. There are grey areas, and that's where the complexities come in. [color=darkgreen]I think every abortion case should be judged on its own merit[/color]. So, GENERALLY, I'm pro-abortion.

The debate on abortion is not a moral debate, because there's no point in considering abortion from a moral perspective.

Abortion is a political and socio-economic issue, and it is from these spheres that conclusions can be drawn on its legality or not.

I welcome your opinion...

But what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.?..what do you mean as member of society? Is it when foetus become full fledged human or after delivery

butterflyl1on:
The error is in your last line in your comment which says "If the womb didn't dissolve the fertilized egg before the period, it wouldn't be in a position to stay in there "

The womb cannot dissolve the fertilised egg. It can only shed it. The egg itself is too tiny to be seen with the ordinary eye so I understand when you used the term "dissolve".

It is only when the egg fails to implant that it can be shed or when it does not implant properly then excessive spotting or stress on the womb can cause it to be shed which is what is termed as a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Why it is called a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion is because FIRST conception had already been achieved when the egg was implanted and the hormones for pregnancy released which at a test showed positive for pregnancy. Any incident that causes a shedding of the egg thereafter is known as a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage.

i appreciate this.....I am not a scientist.... So my words are not technical.... I just love the science world..so permit me in my choice of word

CatfishBilly:
There was so much wrong with this your post that I just ignored it. I saw it the first time you posted it.


When different people repeatedly tell you the same thing and you still refuse to learn, it becomes frustrating. I didn't use foul statement. What I said might be considered rude, but definitely not foul statement.

are you an authority on the subject...that your opinion must be respected above all