₦airaland Forum

fellis: lol, you know it was funny

You just won't admit it cos he was making fun of atheists.

fellis: You also found it funny?

Mr_Anony: Yawn..........your subjective opinions again? Go back and pray to pikkiwoki some more....you are boring me.

fellis:

Vedaxcool I laughed so much.

Your head no correct at all

Mr_Anony: All well and good. I have seen that the definitions you chose for the word apologetics are geared at christians only. Well those are not a correct representatation of the meaning of the word. The word comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means to explain a position. whenever you debate, you are engaging in apologetics. However, I can understand your confusion because the word apologetics has been christianized like the words salvation, redemption, covenant etc but let us not dwell on words and meanings at this point let us move on to burden of proof and reasons for not believing.

I'll use your quote to show you what I mean.


"there is no reason to" here is a non-answer.

Let us say I asked you why don't you believe in Santa and you said that there is no reason, and ask me for evidence

I reply that Santa brings the presents and I have seen him,

The moment you start arguing that the person that brings the presents is not Santa but daddy dressed in funny red clothes, you are providing and explaining your reason why you don't believe.

When I reply that daddy never says "Ho Ho Ho" in a weird voice. And you respond that daddy just makes his voice sound like that, you are defending your reason for not believing in santa ..... and so on and so forth.

By this time you are now fully engaged in Non-Santa apologetics as opposed to my Santa apologetics.

Hating the word apologetics doesn't change the fact that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are atheist apologists same as you, logicboy, cyrexx e.t.c.

Mr_Anony: Lol, you are beginning to slip into meaningless comments again. Since you claim morality is subjective, what do you mean by "moral high ground"? or are you just stating your opinion again? What is wrong with genocide? what is wrong with killing? Why should your opinion be taken seriously at all? You can't have it both ways my friend.

.....and yeah, say hello to your god pikkiwoki for me and have fun riding your pink elephants or whatever else he does to satisfy you.

Mr_Anony: I think this definition pretty much sums it up

InesQor: Hmmm I'm one of those that believe religion and scientific fact do not need to have conflicting stances. I believe they can actually work to compliment one another. Let me give an illustration.

Boy: "Mummy, Daddy, why is the water in this kettle boiling?"
Dad: "It is boiling because the combustion of hydrocarbons has generated heat, which has heated up the water until the vapour pressure is counterbalancing the atmospheric pressure. This tussle of pressures forces the water to react in a boiling manner".
Mum: "It is boiling because Aunty Layide needs hot water; she wants to have tea"

Neither the Dad nor the Mum are really wrong. The Dad has answered the "why", which was the question his son asked. But the Dad's answer will only lead to further questions like "Does water always boil in these conditions? Does it boil ONLY in these conditions? Who decides all these laws?" and many others like that. However, the Mum's answer provides not just the "Why" but also the "Who" and "How".

The Dad's answer is like the Scientific answer (most times), and the Mum's answer is like that of Religion (most times). Science is mostly concerned about the Why of the Process. Religion usually looks into the Presence and Purpose behind the Process.

Religion doesn't just want to know why the Kettle of the Universe is boiling, as science does. It wants to also know, does someone want to have tea? Is there a motive? Is it an ongoing scientific experiment, or a once interesting experiment now left to boil by itself? Is it a labour of love or of arbitrary whimsy? Was it born out of a compulsion to create? Or was someone or something lonely?

okeyxyz: My meaning is that life must precede evolution, That way evolution has a purpose which would be a behavioral modification\adaptation to ensure optimum quality of life or survival of life. Say for instance the earth's gravity becomes greater than what it is now, then by virtue of continued existence in this new environment, our bones would naturally grow denser & stronger, likewise we would gain more muscle mass to resist the additional burden this increased gravity has placed on us. Exactly what happens to body builders. This is just our systems responding to signals it percieves as threatening, therefore it must bolster itself to withstand the continued environmental stress. The reverse happens in less gravity by the loss of bone and muscle mass.

So evolution cannot precede life because then, there'd be no purpose for it to take place. There's no life to receive and react\adapt to signals that threaten or favours it's existence. Note that I say preservation of a life-form, not transformation into other life-forms like they teach in schools(I suppose).

Logicboy03: You are right on Vedaxcool. You can explain things to him over and over again with no progress in him understanding.

Anyways, I like Sweetnecta. He is a cool guy, that is the vibe he gives despite being a devout muslim.

Logicboy03: Lies. I gave a better definition- outside religion, apologetics have to do with ideologies.


Anyway, it is ironic that a muslims should use a south park character after south park embarrassed the Prophet!


BTW, the officers name is officer Barbrady not officer douche.




Epic fail!

Mr_Anony: Basically you have just said might is right and the majority is right.

Mr_Anony: Lol, your anti-christ personality just showed up

Mr_Anony: That is why it is all price and no value.

Mr_Anony: Lol of course you probably did but then where your palm is in relation to your face has nothing to do with the validity of an argument. As I have said earlier, the moment you deny objective morality, you have accepted the chaos that comes with "anything goes".

For once, you have followed your argument to it's logical end without veering into illogical nonsense.

But then the price you paid is that you are no longer qualified to be taken seriously when discussing if something is morally right or wrong because all your argument would really amount to is a subjective opinion.

. . .this is why I say that atheists have no morality. Good and evil is meaningless in your worldview. I rest my case.

Mr_Anony: Lol, You are overlooking the big picture of what this whole argument has been about from the beginning. Perhaps you have forgotten that the comment you quoted lies in the context of an debate to discover the basis for morality.
If morality was never objective in your book, then what morality have you been talking about all along? If there is no good and evil that we can point with certainty, then what exactly are we pointing at? Without morality being objective, you have no case and all you are talking about is the evolution of behaviours not morality

Mr_Anony: Lol, and how about the organisms that are alive that want to die? My friend you can't have it both ways. Nature cannot both have a will and not have a will. If nature has a will, then it would be binding on all organisms but you have argued that it doesn't but that all individual organisms have the will to live. Well some have the will to die. This contradicts your assertion. Anyone can claim a theory my friend but if it doesn't logically follow, it isn't worth much.

Mr_Anony: Lol, you are afraid of a world with God? Well, that's the cold hard truth, deal with it.


What kind of nonsense argument is this? All you've done is say "I find X absurd therefore it is absurd". Invalid! There is only one God and He is eternal, He exists before man or anything else came on the scene. There is no such thing as "before Him"......and yeah by the way I am not religious. I am a Christian.

Mr_Anony: Lol if this is true, then there is no morality. It's kinda like saying that there is no objective measure for length and then ask someone to draw a 5 meter line? The question would be what is 5 meters? because everyone will have a very different definition of what 5 meters is therefore 5 meters or any length at all loses it's meaning. The whole concept of length disappears.


Read the comment above. If you really can't grasp the argument, then that's just too bad.

Mr_Anony: Lol, you know what, your argument had a bit of sense and with a little more development, you might have been able to tie in the ends to produce something half-decent until you decided to argue that objective moral values don't exist thereby destroying your whole argument from top to bottom.

Mr_Anony: My argument is simple: Self-sacrifice does not logically follow from self-preservation. If you think it does, then please explain how so

Mr_Anony: Lol, "life wants to be alive" is now an excellent statement abi? How exactly does life live? I think we are now entering the realm where you begin to resort to meaningless statements. Anyway, here's a few more for "length wants to be long", "heat wants to be hot" if these are equally excellent statements to you, then I really can't help you.

Mr_Anony: Once again in rejecting God you have chosen the route of subjective morality. I would like you to note that just as easily as we can choose self-preservation as the greatest good, we can equally choose self-destruction or the destruction of others as our greatest good or whatever else we like. By making man the basis of our moral values, you have once again stripped morality of it's meaning. I knew it would come to this.

This proves my point all along, without God, objective morality does not exist. Subjective morality means that morality becomes whatever each person defines it as, therefore morality loses it's meaning.

Thank you for your time and good luck to you once again.

Mr_Anony: This is a bad state statement. life is a state of being not an entity with a purpose. What you have just said here is "life wants to be alive" pure meaninglessness

Mr_Anony: This is where you miss the point of God being the basis of morality. The argument is simple. Without a definite God with a will and a purpose, we have no basis for objective moral values. I.e. the nature and character of God is the basis for morality.

If you argue here as you did in the other thread that there is no objective morality, then you once again destroy your argument because there would be no good and no evil and the whole concept of "greater good" becomes meaningless once again.

Mr_Anony: Good. How can something that does not have a will or a purpose become the basis for morality.

The reason I had to cut that chase is because we had started veering off and chasing red herrings. If nature does not have a will, then it cannot be the basis for morality. As far as nature is concerned, it doesn't matter which organisms dies and which one survives. Whatever an organism does is just what the organism has done. It is neither morally good nor evil. That's the core of the point I've been making all along.

Mr_Anony: My friend you go again. Now you seem to have realized that Self-preservation and self-sacrifice are mutually exclusive so you have come up with the argument that there is an intricate complex relationship between organisms so that one species' loss becomes a benefit for another species i.e. species become inter-dependent and humans led by nature somehow play a role as defenders of all life. This is all well and good but I hope you do realize that by doing this, you have given nature a will and it is no longer an indifferent spectator.

The moment you give nature a will and purpose like this in that it moves in a definite direction, you have simply defined nature as God (an ultimate power that determines outcomes of all species) and your argument becomes similar to "God (nature) has a plan for everything."

Perhaps i have misread you again. If so, let us cut the chase by asking: Does nature have a will? Yes or no.

Mr_Anony: All well and good. I have seen that the definitions you chose for the word apologetics are geared at christians only. Well those are not a correct representatation of the meaning of the word. The word comes from the Greek word "apologia" which means to explain a position. whenever you debate, you are engaging in apologetics. However, I can understand your confusion because the word apologetics has been christianized like the words salvation, redemption, covenant etc but let us not dwell on words and meanings at this point let us move on to burden of proof and reasons for not believing.

I'll use your quote to show you what I mean.


"there is no reason to" here is a non-answer.

Let us say I asked you why don't you believe in Santa and you said that there is no reason, and ask me for evidence

I reply that Santa brings the presents and I have seen him,

The moment you start arguing that the person that brings the presents is not Santa but daddy dressed in funny red clothes, you are providing and explaining your reason why you don't believe.

When I reply that daddy never says "Ho Ho Ho" in a weird voice. And you respond that daddy just makes his voice sound like that, you are defending your reason for not believing in santa ..... and so on and so forth.

By this time you are now fully engaged in Non-Santa apologetics as opposed to my Santa apologetics.

Hating the word apologetics doesn't change the fact that Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are atheist apologists same as you, logicboy, cyrexx e.t.c.

advocate666: They just don't know it.

Satan's greatest gift to mankind is the gift of knowledge which he gave to us through Eve. When people gain knowledge, they find out that godly stories are bullcrap so they turn to atheism. This atheism fulfills the wish of Satan.
Although Satan would like everyone to bow down and worship him, this is however not his priority and unlike god, will not punish you if you don't acknowledge him. What gives him most pleasure is seeing children of men gaining more knowledge everyday and freedom from the godly oppressors and doom preachers.
Although some atheists might deny this assertion, it doesn't matter as He is not bothered. If however you take a step further from Atheism and bow down and worship the true Master, upon your knowledge will be added wealth, power, pleasure, health, happiness etc.

Mr_Anony: Wow, long post and I read through all of it but my friend, I really don't intend to argue this further because I see it ending in fruitlessness and I am a bit NL lazy to go into an argument that will feature long sermon after long sermon with neither of us budging.

Of all you said however, one thing stood out to me that I think undermines your whole argument (and I have highlighted that). The moment you deny objective moral values, all morality becomes subjective and we can no longer determine good and evil with any certainty. The whole argument we are having here about whether homosexuality is right or wrong or any other such argument for that matter loses all meaning and immediately breaks down since we have no objective moral values.

My whole argument rests on the fact that there are such things as are objectively morally good and objectively morally evil. Now you have denied this, we no longer have an argument but I will have you know that this also means that you lose credibility and can no longer be taken seriously whenever you say something or anything is good or evil because all you will be voicing is a subjective opinion.

For instance I'll quote you here to show you what I mean:


My comments in red are there to show you an example of how the meaning of the argument breaks down completely once you deny objective moral values. It just becomes two people arguing over nothing.


As I always say; you can escape from any argument if you are willing to pay a high enough price. In this case, the price you have paid is to strip morality of all its meaning.

Goodluck to you.

Mr_Anony: I know right? me too, I remember how my parents forced me to greet my elders in the morning, forced me to say "thank you" after eating, forced me to adopt their tribal cultural norms, heck they even forced me to go to school and learn English, Maths, Social Studies and Science.

My very wicked parents didn't give me the chance to sit down with them and logically argue my choice of primary school and the culture I wanted to adopt. How desperately wicked they were!

Can you believe that my father, even went as far as 'forcing' me to be patriotic to Nigeria, a country I don't necessarily like that much? In fact, we had a massive argument (and I am sure he had to restrain himself from slapping me) when I had come of age and told him that I really didn't like the Super Eagles because they are a rubbish team.

me: How are math, english, etc, the same as indoctrinating you into a religion? These are technical skills, not belief systems.

And speaking of patriotism, let's look at north korea. All that propaganda, and most importantly, not giving their citizens a choice. They're government persecutes the few lucky ones cognizant of other philosophies that choose not to subscribe to the government's. This it does while extolling its own philosophy as unambiguously being the 'perfect', correct, or best one. This is a claim that cannot even be truly objectively ascertained, therefore it's unfalsifiable. A completely nonsense claim portrayed as fact.

In their case, their system is clearly not 'perfect' by most of humanity's standards. There certainly are other systems that work, in fact much better ones based on criteria like say the hdi. All a citizen would have to do is cross their southern borders and voila, gangnam style. A system many of them would much rather prefer, but they are denied both this information and a means to get to the south. They're even denied the power to enact change in their own yards, it's a one party system. Heck, even their freedom to think for themselves has been constrained.


The korean government's methods are an excellent example of religious indoctrination at work. If your patriotism was attained via similar methods, then obviously yes, you were coerced. Most faith-based religions are perpetuated using similar tactics.

Mr_Anony: Frankly, I fail to see how your response has much to do with what I am talking about. I pointing at the absurdity of suggesting that people should engage in discussions with their underaged children over how they would like to be raised. If you would like to reply me, please be sure to address the point I am making.

Mr_Anony: Breaks apart here, considering that the argument is for a basis for morality, an inconsistent frequently 'misfiring' nature cannot possibly serve as a basis for morality. The point is that nature is - as Richard Dawkins put it - "the blind watchman". It has no will and hence no measure of good and evil.

Mr_Anony: This is all well and good but I hope you notice that it seems you are saying on the one hand that our genes want us to survive and will lead us towards selfish self-preservation and reciprocity (and I use the word reciprocity because kindness done on the basis of expecting recompense even in the case of a reward in the form of a more co-operative society is not altruism).
On the other hand, our brains (which by the way are a product of our evolving genes) enable us to make the choice to truly sacrifice ourselves without expecting a reward for ourselves or close relatives but other species and completely unrelated humans, because we have empathy (true altruism)

Mr_Anony: These two positions show a conflict of purpose for the genes and makes my case stronger which is that the genes (evolution) have no will other than survival and hence cannot possibly be a basis for morality in any way. More so because we assign more moral value to consciously choosing the route of self-sacrifice over self-preservation.

We even regard kindness to strangers and unrelated people as having more moral value than kindness to close relatives. Once again this contradicts the selfish gene that is more interested in replicating itself and enhancing related genes as opposed to unrelated ones.

Mr_Anony: Makes sense up to this point.



Moving a little further but still makes some logical sense.


Breaks apart here, considering that the argument is for a basis for morality, an inconsistent frequently 'misfiring' nature cannot possibly serve as a basis for morality. The point is that nature is - as Richard Dawkins put it - "the blind watchman". It has no will and hence no measure of good and evil.


This is all well and good but I hope you notice that it seems you are saying on the one hand that our genes want us to survive and will lead us towards selfish self-preservation and reciprocity (and I use the word reciprocity because kindness done on the basis of expecting recompense even in the case of a reward in the form of a more co-operative society is not altruism).
On the other hand, our brains (which by the way are a product of our evolving genes) enable us to make the choice to truly sacrifice ourselves without expecting a reward for ourselves or close relatives but other species and completely unrelated humans, because we have empathy (true altruism)

These two positions show a conflict of purpose for the genes and makes my case stronger which is that the genes (evolution) have no will other than survival and hence cannot possibly be a basis for morality in any way. More so because we assign more moral value to consciously choosing the route of self-sacrifice over self-preservation.

We even regard kindness to strangers and unrelated people as having more moral value than kindness to close relatives. Once again this contradicts the selfish gene that is more interested in replicating itself and enhancing related genes as opposed to unrelated ones.

Uyi Iredia: The person who wrote this is a dunce who can't read. God got consent from Mary before impregnating her.

fellis: wiegraf are you gay?

fellis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Albert_Einstein

Mr_Anony: Some parts of the world have no age of consent and will sanction marriages between a 50yr old and a 7yr old. The reason I presented this case is because you seem to be of the opinion that "there is no 'harm' done therefore it is alright". I want to put it to you that in the same sense, there is equally no "harm" done in s[color=#000000]ex[/color] between an overaged man and an underaged child since they will both be enjoying themselves.

Mr_Anony: If you grew up in a country like Qatar (or even in some remote Nigerian villages) where there is no such thing as age of consent, you would probably see nothing wrong with 9 yr old girls marrying mature men because it would be the norm. These little girls usually grow up to be very capable wives and mothers and have happily always lived that way until the those "evil christian missionaries" came with their civilization.

Mr_Anony: I hold that there are such practices that are in themselves objectively morally evil. I hold that all [color=#000000]s[/color]ex outside marriage is immoral in whatever form it takes (where marriage by definition is the union between one man and one woman). Se[color=#000000]x[/color] and consequently marriage has a purpose outside itself which is to birth and raise offspring. It is God's gift to us that s[color=#000000]e[/color]x is pleasurable. The pleasure of s[color=#000000]e[/color]x is not it's purpose but it's byproduct.

Mr_Anony: If we argue from a genetic point of view (and the reason I am going this route is because that is what you believe to be the grounds for morality), then we will agree that the aim of lust and se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al pleasure is so that man can procreate therefore this means that the only time lust would be appropriate is when it is directed at a mate capable of reproducing and prolonging the survival of the species. The hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual, the object-s[color=#000000]exu[/color]al, the zoophile e.t.c. do not have their lust directed at something capable of creating offspring. They are into s[color=#000000]e[/color]x solely for the pleasure derived from it and not for the purpose of s[color=#000000]e[/color]x which is reproduction.

Mr_Anony: I put it to you that zoophiles, hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuals and object-se[color=#000000]xu[/color]als will not exist if we had somehow 'evolved' in such a way that there was no pleasure from s[color=#000000]e[/color]x but rather it was one of those necessary bodily activities like excretion (a very possible outcome in evolution).

Mr_Anony: I am very convinced that the hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual lifestyle is not in any way genetic (for starters, how will the gene be passed on?). It is a behaviour driven entirely by lust and an unusual kind of lust for that matter. It is even more logical to argue that criminal tendencies are genetic. The argument that some people are hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual from birth is nothing more than propaganda. (It even makes more sense to argue that some people are ped[color=#000000]ophi[/color]les from birth). If -and this is very unlikely - anyone is born hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual at all, it would have absolutely nothing to do with genetics and more likely be something more like a birth defect.

Mr_Anony: My argument on the most likely cause of hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual behaviour is that a child is somehow exposed to it at a young age before he forms any real notions of what his se[color=#000000]xu[/color]ality is. Same-[color=#000000]se[/color]x prisons and boarding schools are notorious for being the kind of places where hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual sex thrives even amongst people that would outside that environment, define themselves as heter[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual.

Mr_Anony: Now my theory (though not cast in stone at this time) is that if a child is exposed to hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual acts before he ascertains his s[color=#000000]exu[/color]al identity, he is likely to see it as the norm of s[color=#000000]ex[/color]ual behaviour and consequently becomes attracted to members of the same s[color=#000000]ex[/color]. At this point, his lust has sufficiently become misdirected. I dare say the same goes for animal attraction as weird as it may sound.

Mr_Anony: The above has been a write-up to show that the whole argument of being "born that way" is utter rubbish. At best hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xuality is a sexual preference much like how some people prefer blondes over brunettes, or fat over slim and in some other extreme cases; horses over humans, or chairs over tables, or children over adults. Elevating a mere se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al preference to an "identity" is a cheap propaganda trick to enable activists to claim victim status.

Mr_Anony: I hold that it is totally silly to oppress someone just because of his/her se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al preferences (It would be stu[color=#000000]pi[/color]d to persecute brunette-lovers for instance) and I hold that it is equally very silly for someone to define himself by his se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al preference (for instance someone going about describing himself as a brunette-lover, filling it in forms and forming entire communities based on his preference for brunettes I find to be utterly stu[color=#000000]pi[/color]d)

Mr_Anony: Now as much as I hold that it is silly to define oneself by his/her se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al preferences, I also hold that certain se[color=#000000]xu[/color]al preferences are sinful and immoral. such as preferring pr[color=#000000]ostitu[/color]tes over ones wife/husband, preferring little children over one's wife/husband, preferring persons of the same gender or animals e.t.c. In fact all s[color=#000000]e[/color]x outside marriage is sin.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with s[color=#000000]e[/color]x in itself but certain types of s[color=#000000]e[/color]x are immoral i.e. when s[color=#000000]e[/color]x is no longer the sacred communion between a husband and wife but is used solely for carnal pleasure or at the expense of another person, it is immoral. In much the same way that there is nothing wrong with speech in itself but certain kinds of speech are immoral e.g. Any speech that falls outside truth or when speech is used in certain ways such that it is hateful and abusive for instance, it becomes immoral.

Mr_Anony: My position on the case of the hom[color=#000000]ose[/color]xual is the same as my position on the liar, thief, fornicator, idolater, drunkard e.t.c. It is:

Love them, Preach to them and Pray for them that God will convict them of their sins and bring them to the knowledge of Christ.

Mr_Anony: Lol, I guessed you would toe this line so let me put it to you like this: For you to legitimately ask me why I don't believe in the easter bunny, the assumption is that I know what the easter bunny is to start with. If I don't have any concept whatsoever about the easter bunny, then the statement "I don't believe in the easter bunny" is unnecessary.

The same applies: When you say that you don't believe that God exists, then first of all, you must needs be conversant with the concept of God and there would be certain characters of Him that you would find unbelievable hence your position on His existence. In order to find God unbelievable, there must be things that you believe to be absolutely true and since the concept of God contradicts with what you believe to be true, it will have to be false. If you don't know about God at all, then you really cannot have a position on Him and it makes no sense to argue since you are completely ignorant of God.

Basically, what I am saying is that You cannot argue the existence of God if you are totally ignorant of what you are talking about, the moment you declare that you don't believe in God, you have declared a position. You cannot have it both ways. Any attempt to explain that position is engaging in apologetics. You cannot hide behind "burden of proof" just because you don't like the word apologetics. Sorry it doesn't work that way.

Mr_Anony: I know right? me too, I remember how my parents forced me to greet my elders in the morning, forced me to say "thank you" after eating, forced me to adopt their tribal cultural norms, heck they even forced me to go to school and learn English, Maths, Social Studies and Science.

My very wicked parents didn't give me the chance to sit down with them and logically argue my choice of primary school and the culture I wanted to adopt. How desperately wicked they were!

Can you believe that my father, even went as far as 'forcing' me to be patriotic to Nigeria, a country I don't necessarily like that much? In fact, we had a massive argument (and I am sure he had to restrain himself from slapping me) when I had come of age and told him that I really didn't like the Super Eagles because they are a rubbish team.

Mr_Anony: Lol, If I said I don't believe in the easter bunny for instance, I think it is a reasonable question for someone to ask me why I don't believe in the easter bunny.
Same goes for you; "Why don't you believe in God?" is a reasonable question.

Mr_Anony: lol, you really shouldn't have bothered replying him. Notice his condescending tone when he says the highlighted. He tries to imply that somehow being a christian automatically makes you have poor intellect? Perhaps you should ask him where he got his bigoted view from?

Mr_Anony: Also ask him on what basis he justifies his unbelief because if there is no reason for not believing, then atheism ceases to be a position at all and need not be explained or defended i.e no apologetics.
However, if there are reasons for disbelief, then it qualifies as a position and any arguments in favor of it can very well be termed apologetics.