A condom-freeeee God!!!
If IT wants us to use condoms, IT should modify the African pehnise size!!!
I am frankly TIRED of losing waaaaay too many condoms in first-round ONLY!
Goodnight!!!

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I expected you to say that. Question is: Is it true? No it is not.
Need I remind you that you were the one who first wrongly assumed that my mention of pride was an accusation of evil.

i know its not likely to be true. im just trying to show you how condescending you sound to me when you say i'm under guilt. FYI, im not under any guilt, im living free. my mind is free. whether you believe or not.

about calling non-believers proud, i thought you are using it in the context of pride as a evil and "sin" that deserves punishment, even eternal punishment. the same pride that the "devil" fell into. yes. "call them proud and tell them they deserve whatever bad happens to them from the hands of your imaginary friend". i thought you meant that. i get that a lot from many theists.

but if what you mean is the kind of pride that is not evil, like a parent being proud of their son... then apologies for misunderstanding

i hope i will have the chance to talk to you face to face one day and see you as person for who you are. you are an enigma.

@macdaddy, perhaps you've heard this before, it's from the movie Lucky Number Slevin:

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

cyrexx:

i know its not likely to be true. im just trying to show you how condescending you sound to me when you say i'm under guilt. FYI, im not under any guilt, im living free. my mind is free. whether you believe or not.

about calling non-believers proud, i thought you are using it in the context of pride as a evil and "sin" that deserves punishment, even eternal punishment. the same pride that the "devil" fell into. yes. "call them proud and tell them they deserve whatever bad happens to them from the hands of your imaginary friend". i thought you meant that. i get that a lot from many theists.

but if what you mean is the kind of pride that is not evil, like a parent being proud of their son... then apologies for misunderstanding

i hope i will have the chance to talk to you face to face one day and see you as person for who you are. you are an enigma.

Lol, I meant exactly the same pride the devil had, I meant an over-sized ego and I have every reason to do so because I just carried out a poll and majority of the atheists that responded said that they will not submit to God even if he was revealed to them in all His glory.
It was not a baseless accusation I was not painting anyone with a color they didn't already appear in.

Your jumping in to read your own meaning into it is exactly the same false "condescending psychoanalysis" you are accusing me off. Jumping in like that with a vehement though baseless counter-accusation only leaves me to assume one thing: guilt.

As for meeting in person one day, I am always open to that, in fact I will very much like that.

I'd have to say you are wrong about agnostics by your proclamations here. Agnostics, unlike atheists, do not completely reject the notion of a supreme creator. They are just not sure about it but still keep an open mind about it.

Quite different from atheists who have completely closed up their mind to the possibility of the aforementioned concept. That is how atheists got the label they go around in, no? An agnostic says, "I don't know. I can't say anything conclusive on the existence of a supreme creator because i do not have enough data to utter anything conclusive on the matter but i know that there is something responsible for this existence." An atheist, on the other hand, utters conclusively that there is no such being. He/she has to do that to justify his/her own label as an atheist.

What is an atheist without that which he/she rejects?

jayriginal:

An agnostic is an atheist.

An agnostic does not believe in god.

As LogicBoy jokingly put it, an agnostic is an atheist without b[i]a[/i]lls.

This is such a lie and you know it. It seems, in your view, that everybody should pick only two sides set up by two different groups based on what their beliefs and non-beliefs are. Absolute crock. Agnostics don't have to follow any of the two groups. That would be intellectually dishonest. Jayriginal, you will never get any more intellectually honest with yourself if you learn to say to yourself, i am not sure. That leaves room for further research and investigation on the subject. The mind is always open and searching not closed up. That is how to learn. It is quite amazing how similar the religionists and atheist are, really. I thought, for a moment, that i was replying to a religious fanatic there.

jayriginal:
The truth is, there is no halfway between belief. You either do or you dont. The "maybe" answer is actually a no, but sounds non commital. You cannot maybe believe or maybe not. Saying you dont believe there is a god is not the same thing as saying you believe there is no god.



Lol

Jenwitemi: I'd have to say you are wrong about agnostics by your proclamations here. Agnostics, unlike atheists, do not completely reject the notion of a supreme creator. They are just not sure about it but still keep an open mind about it.

Quite different from atheists who have completely closed up their mind to the possibility of the aforementioned concept. That is how atheists got the label they go around in, no? An agnostic says, "I don't know. I can't say anything conclusive on the existence of a supreme creator because i do not have enough data to utter anything conclusive on the matter but i know that there is something responsible for this existence." An atheist, on the other hand, utters conclusively that there is no such being. He/she has to do that to justify his/her own label as an atheist.

What is an atheist without that which he/she rejects?

Did you read everything I wrote on the subject or just that post ?

Mr_Anony:
Lol, I meant exactly the same pride the devil had, I meant an over-sized ego and I have every reason to do so because I just carried out a poll and majority of the atheists that responded said that they will not submit to God even if he was revealed to them in all His glory.
It was not a baseless accusation I was not painting anyone with a color they didn't already appear in.

Your jumping in to read your own meaning into it is exactly the same false "condescending psychoanalysis" you are accusing me off. Jumping in like that with a vehement though baseless counter-accusation only leaves me to assume one thing: guilt.

As for meeting in person one day, I am always open to that, in fact I will very much like that.

i wanted to reply, but i dont want to get involved in another back and forth with you for now. its tiresome and fruitless.

if you still falsely assume im under guilt even after i had explicitly told you i'm not. you are really Mr Annoying and i dont think there is any need to subject myself to furhter unnecessary and deliberately offensive false accusations/ad hominien from you. you got a lot of nerve.

Yes, i did.

jayriginal:

Did you read everything I wrote on the subject or just that post ?

Jenwitemi: Yes, i did.

Alright then.

Jenwitemi: This is such a lie and you know it. It seems, in your view, that everybody should pick only two sides set up by two different groups based on what their beliefs and non-beliefs are. Absolute crock. Agnostics don't have to follow any of the two groups. That would be intellectually dishonest. Jayriginal, you will never get any more intellectually honest with yourself if you learn to say to yourself, i am not sure. That leaves room for further research and investigation on the subject. The mind is always open and searching not closed up. That is how to learn. It is quite amazing how similar the religionists and atheist are, really. I thought, for a moment, that i was replying to a religious fanatic there.

I'm just seeing this. How rude.

I'm quite disappointed in you. We are talking of terminology here. Where did I say an agnostic has to "follow" any of "the two groups" ? Is there any place I said saying "I am not sure " is wrong ?

Here let me spell it out for you.

An atheist is not one who says there is no god, an atheist is one who does not believe there is a god. Its a broad term encompassing those who do not believe in god. In that classification, you will find those that assert that there is no god and those that say they dont know.

Now be honest with yourself, if I ask you if you believe Obama will achieve a second tenure and you say "I am not sure" am I not justified in saying that you do not believe he would win the re-election ?
What is common is that most people tend to evaluate "I do not believe there is god" to be the same as "I believe there is no god". They mean different things. Using the example above, while I can say that you do not believe Obama will win the election, I cannot say that you believe Obama will not win the election. Two different meanings.
If you are not sure about something, it is not possible to believe in that thing, in other words you do NOT believe in that thing.

I hope this is clear enough for you.

Feel free to disagree but please do so with decorum and try and understand what it is you disagree with.

cyrexx:

i wanted to reply, but i dont want to get involved in another back and forth with you for now. its tiresome and fruitless.

if you still falsely assume im under guilt even after i had explicitly told you i'm not. you are really Mr Annoying and i dont think there is any need to subject myself to furhter unnecessary and deliberately offensive false accusations/ad hominien from you. you got a lot of nerve.

Wow, you are really such a sensitive fellow. An explanation of why I assumed guilt is not the same as an accusation. Whether my assumption was actually right or wrong is another matter entirely. . . .and yeah calling you sensitive is not an accusation/ad hominen.
You have repeatedly stated that you feel no guilt, I agree but one thing you definitely are is very sensitive as you seem to have this ability to read an accusation into the most trivial of statements.

Interesting.

Disbelief = "strong" or evangelical or militant atheism.

Lack of belief = passive atheism e.g. dogs, cows, monkeys (maybe even unconcerned humans)

"I'm not really sure one way or another conclusively" = Agnosticism

jayriginal:

An agnostic is an atheist.

An agnostic does not believe in god.

As LogicBoy jokingly put it, an agnostic is an atheist without b[i]a[/i]lls.

you are not completely right, an agnostic is simply not concerned about Gods existence or non existence, we believe in wat we can see, and if u cant be seen then piss off, we dont give a damn.

jayriginal:

To test for atheism only one question is necessary; "Do you believe in god ?". The rest na jara.

So, would you say an agnostic believes in god?

this is it, whats ur definition of god? i dont belive in all d god been preached around me, if theres a god dat i wud beliv in, i havent heard about him/her, simply put.

jayriginal:

It makes no difference as the result is the same. Lets use your modification.

Question : Do you believe there is a god ?

Atheist : No. (Very clear and direct).

Agnostic: Maybe (just trying to avoid saying no, which is where the joke about having balls comes into play). The truth is, there is no halfway between belief. You either do or you dont. The "maybe" answer is actually a no, but sounds non commital. You cannot maybe believe or maybe not. Saying you dont believe there is a god is not the same thing as saying you believe there is no god.



Lol

u dont seem to get the issue with us, the issue is wether there is a god or not, he remains to bhe known, and since he aint yet known we dont care if there is a god or not, thats why we give u d maybe answer.

All jayriginal is pointing out is that anyone who can't answer in the affirmative to the question "Do you believe in a god?" is agnostic..

I don't fully agree with him.

One who says he doesn't believe, then closes his heart to any such insinuation qualifies as an atheist.

musKeeto: All jayriginal is pointing out is that anyone who can't answer in the affirmative to the question "Do you believe in a god?" is agnostic..

I don't fully agree with him.

One who says he doesn't believe, then closes his heart to any such insinuation qualifies as an atheist.

I don't think ANY atheist fits into that.
Evidence. Bring evidence. Isn't that what's all about?

Avicenna:

I don't think ANY atheist fits into that.
Evidence. Bring evidence. Isn't that what's all about?

My apologies. I meant atheist not agnostic..

Sweet thread soooooo derailed as usual. I believe the subject matter states clearly: What an agnostic/atheist woiuld look for in a GOD, assuming he or she COULD find one? Not the definition of an atheist/agnostic.

Irritating BATS that can only be found FLYING BLINDLY at NOON, around the OBA's dirty palace by RING ROAD ONLY in Benin-City for sure. Mtcheeeeeew!!!!

Will y'awl stick to the damn topic or PHOCK DA HELL OFF!!!


GADDEMITT.

MacDaddy01:


Unfortunately you are right; going from forum to forum doesnt make me brave, just makes me look jobless. However, it is for a greater good. I believe that people learn from our arguments! some people have even confessed that they have changed faith because of the debates

Do not despair! But persevere! Though it may tarry, it will surely come!
https://www.nairaland.com/1028529/defence-logicboy

God is not what you think it is. Agnostic/atheist are just humans whose minds have questions that are unanswered by the bible and other 'holy books' and refuse or fail to seek knowledge elsewhere. Indeed they are lost of ideas on the plus factors of the universe. They are very argumentative, violent, dangerous and 'remotely' suicidal when in extreme poverty. They are called "Lost Souls" in the bible. They need more education on the cosmic nature of "GOD". These knowledge are beyond the scope of the Bible, the Koran and other dogmatic 'holy' books. But the truth is out there....

musKeeto:
My apologies. I meant atheist not agnostic..

So confusing even more. muskeeto, my man, this is why I avoid all this appellation and distinctions. It is, in practice,irrelevant.

If I can, I won't use the label- atheist in discussions. It closes the opponent's mind to ordinary reason.

Check the other thread for a Sam harris's opinion.

Billyonaire: God is not what you think it is. Agnostic/atheist are just humans whose minds have questions that are unanswered by the bible and other 'holy books' and refuse or fail to seek knowledge elsewhere. Indeed they are lost of ideas on the plus factors of the universe. They are very argumentative, violent, dangerous and 'remotely' suicidal when in extreme poverty. They are called "Lost Souls" in the bible. They need more education on the cosmic nature of "GOD". These knowledge are beyond the scope of the Bible, the Koran and other dogmatic 'holy' books. But the truth is out there....

I get my knowledge from science. That's not good enough?
Educate me on other sources of knowledge. If you don't mind.

Billyonaire: God is not what you think it is. Agnostic/atheist are just humans whose minds have questions that are unanswered by the bible and other 'holy books' and refuse or fail to seek knowledge elsewhere. Indeed they are lost of ideas on the plus factors of the universe. They are very argumentative, violent, dangerous and 'remotely' suicidal when in extreme poverty. They are called "Lost Souls" in the bible. They need more education on the cosmic nature of "GOD". These knowledge are beyond the scope of the Bible, the Koran and other dogmatic 'holy' books. But the truth is out there....

Where is it? Point us in the right direction...

A natural God.

Mr_Anony: @macdaddy, perhaps you've heard this before, it's from the movie Lucky Number Slevin:

"The first time someone calls you a horse you punch him on the nose, the second time someone calls you a horse you call him a jerk but the third time someone calls you a horse, well then perhaps it's time to go shopping for a saddle."

What have I done to garner so much dislike

Mr_Anony:
I've been following this thread and apart from Calloti's trolling, I find it interesting for the most part.
The above quote is the part that interests me the most.
I believe God is Love and that is what Christianity is all about. This is why I say it is not a religion.
The problem is a lot of people who do not understand Christianity attack a stereotype of it. I don't see how a person of reason can reject Christianity in fact rationality does lead men to Christ. However, I have come to understand that it is not logic and reason that stands in the way of accepting Christ, it is pride.
A man's ego is what stands in his way.

Rationality can lead Christianity? Really? If so, what place does faith have?

Kay 17:

Rationality can lead Christianity? Really? If so, what place does faith have?

Faith is the sister of belief and the cause of action. Now why do you object to that statement by Mr Anony.

I take faith to be a conviction isolated from reality

Kay 17: I take faith to be a conviction isolated from reality

You have it wrong. Faith is a conviction quite alright, the question is: what do you have faith in?
Faith in something that is not true is what we call insanity or blind-faith.
Faith must be reasonable else it is not valid.
To put it simply, 'to have faith' simply means 'to believe'

Mr_Anony:
You have it wrong. Faith is a conviction quite alright, the question is: what do you have faith in?
Faith in something that is not true is what we call insanity or blind-faith.
Faith must be reasonable else it is not valid.
To put it simply, 'to have faith' simply means 'to believe'

The bold is nonsense. Faith is not reasonable. Can not be reasonable and will never be reasonable.

Believing in something that has no evidence or existence in reality is not reasonable.

God is unreasonable. There is no perfection or omnipotence in our existence or universe. A perfect god or omnipotent god can not exist.