₦airaland Forum

jaephoenix:
As an addendum…
Why don't you use the word kjrls or ajrrfve instead of 'god'?
If the said 'god' appeared to you to prove itself/herself/himself/Bleep-self etc, how would you recognize it and process the fact that its a 'god'. Or would it say "Hey, Workch here I am, I'm god" before you now become a theist?

irrespective of what you use to arrive at a god, it's something that is capable of creating what we see today.

LordReed:
You are reading something that clearly tells you what I think but you choose to misrepresent for whatever reason, tells me my conversation with you is over.

Lemme add for clarity: I told you I am am an agnostic atheist. I show you a clear description of what an agnostic atheist is but you still say "You just don't want to accept that we don't know if a god exist or not hence we should stop disbelieving it or believing it.". What clearer way would it be put to you that I do not claim to believe or know if a god exists.

Does an agnostic atheist disbelieve the existence of a god?
Make it clear enough

jaephoenix:
Lemme wade into this discourse. Since you don't know whether a 'god' exists, how do you know the definition and attributes of a 'god'?

I don't know the definition or attribute of God.
One only attribute I think a god should have is someone that is capable of creating us.

KnownUnknown:
I’m agnostic about Sango and Thor. Who really is the god of thunder and lightning??
Even though science says gods do not cause thunder and lightning, I’m still agnostic about Sango and Thor because there is no evidence they don’t exist.

you are not agnostic to it, you are just denying the fact that evidence suggest that a man can not cause thunder and we fully understand how thunder works hence the description of Thor and sango is utter nonsense.

LordReed:
Oga call yourself anything you want that's your business. You asked for my opinion and I have given it. Did I ask you to change the label you use for yourself?

Lol, LordReed. You just don't want to accept that we don't know if a god exist or not hence we should stop disbelieving it or believing it.

LordReed:
You asked for my opinion and I gave it. I am not calling you anything, you are free to use any label you choose as I am. I am only telling you the label I use for myself.

So no one can truly be an agnostic because your picture says so?

paxonel:
how do you test religious claims?

Using scientific methods.
We can test if Noah's flood really happened, we have done it and it never did.
We can test Virgin unfertilized conception mammals, all evidence suggests that Mary's vrigin birth is most likely a lie.

LordReed:
Someone already pointed this out before IRC.

your opinion is that I'm lying that I'm a pure agnostics?

LordReed:
And how is this different from what I have said?

What do you think is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?

paxonel:
in that case, agnotism should only exist in the rhelm of science and should not have any opinion in religion since religion is strictly theoretical and does not require scientific apparatus

No, religion claims should also be tested. Alot of fraudulent claims are in religion and one needs to test them.

LordReed:
How does lack of belief equal knowing that a god doesn't exist?

It's not, atheists don't know, they just don't believe he exist.
Atheism is not based on knowledge, they are the opposite of theists.

LordReed:
What is the middle?

never base your conclusions on believes or disbelieve. Always base it on evidence by knowledge, when evidence is not available, remain skeptical and neutral.

helinues:
Anything not in you guys favour must have been tampered with.

Make una try and take responsibility for your lapses without blaming others

the figure does. It make sense. Ebonyi cannot be more populated than Abia state.

Ebonyi cannot have 3.6million poor people. It's not possible.

correctguy101:
Lols..

When I tell you people to make peace with it all, you won't listen...
See now, my dear Lord Worldch is now running from his fellow human..

Let the believers breathe and you believers, let us infidels breathe too..😂

Too idle today, now devil don use me go drink tombo...

Abeg, I need go bath and sleep now... I just dey type on...

it's hard to win an argument against an intelligent person but it's impossible to win against a fool, so why should I even try doing it?

paxonel:
what if the logical evidence of the said certainty isn't science methodogically based but a conclusion derived from reading about consitencies like miracles and prophecies written in a holy book in relation to what is obtainable to today's reality?

anything that cannot be tested is prone to fraud.

LordReed:
Lemme ask you the reverse. On what ground should I believe in aliens or a god?

on what ground should you not believe it either?
You should be somewhere in the middle

Depriest2020:
That's a black mamba.
You could have simply drove it away instead of killing it, not only that you killed it, you cooked and ate it, also drank the pepper soup. You're more dangerous than that mamba.

it's not a black mamba, black mambas are not usually black. They are usually gray in colour.

This is a forest cobra. Look at the neck

Chido26:
That's King Cobra, well done!

it's not a king cobra, it's a forest cobra. King Cobras are found in India alone.

Forest cobra.

LordReed:
Huh?

yes, you can't. On what ground would you do that?

The estimated population of ebonyi state as estimated in 2016 is 3.4million, how come Ebonyi state has 3.6m poor people?
And you now say that 3.6m account for 78% of the population in Ebonyi state.

Does it mean that Ebonyi state is now about 5million people?
And according to the maths here, Ebonyi state is more populated than Abia state.

😂😂😂

correctguy101:
And that is evidence of what?

You've started o, you this man..

I don't even respond to him 😂

LordReed:
Did I say otherwise?

So you cannot conclude that you don't believe in aliens and God

Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

LordReed:
That is an unfounded leap. You cannot go from I don't know how this happened to here is the explanation without any actual explanation.

you don't know of aliens exist or not and you don't know if God exist or not bro.

KnownUnknown:
Have they decided if he has a scrotum? I mean they refer to a male when it could be a female. Does he have a belly button?

It will be easy to disprove if they actually gave a characteristic to test.

LordReed:
The claim aliens may exist is based on facts.

the claim God may exist is also based on equal fact. You don't utterly reject aliens because of lack of evidence

1. The are many billions of planets.

we don't know anything about before big bang

2. Some of those planets are capable of supporting life.

we don't even know everything about what happened after big bang, not to talk of a before big bang.

3. There is no reason to think life and evolution are singular events.

I don't think life and evolution are singular events. No one except creationists think that.

Therefore it is reasonable to speculate about there being aliens.

Wormholes are a prediction from theoretical physics, same way blackholes were also predicted.

therefore is also reasonable to speculate about the existence of a creator because we don't know how everything started.

LordReed:
Then there is a basis for making the claim.




That is not what baseless means.

is the existence of aliens and warmholes baseless then. Because such concept is not based on fact.

KnownUnknown:
Did they decide the reason their imaginary friend does not intervene?
Is it laziness or indifference?

I don't know but they say he doesn't, which is not wrong m, because we have evidence of nothing intervening.

lexylaw40:
the police will be made to independent of the executive. So that should solve the problem

dey play

duro4chang:
Now that you ask me na who I go ask? I no dey work for refinery even self I no dey work for government. But sha the trouble don dey tay.

no now you see say it's just senseless how our politicians do things.

duro4chang:
Yes if they refine in their country. It will come down in our country I can assure you of that.

o what happened to fixing the refineries before removing subsidy?

Educate me