I believe there cud be buh they don't need to tell or show to everyone tat they're atheists...

It take great boldness and courage to be irreligious. Not many females has that kind of courage, Nigerian females especially. Besides the religions and culture in Nigeria are extremely misogynistic...Maybe that to some aspect also play a role.

Wait lemme dig up her monicker. Would be right back


*modified*

Amusaopeyemi

TrapQueen77:
I believe there cud be buh they don't need to tell or show to everyone tat they're atheists...

are you one

passyhansome:
Am a believer, but just an observation, Do female atheist exist in Nigeria or Africa beyond

shei you wan marry dem and yes there are we have several especially on facebook who live in nigeria but i won't mention names bro

stephenmorris:
shei you wan marry dem and yes there are we have several especially on facebook who live in nigeria but i won't mention names bro

Lepasharon is one

blessedvisky:
Lepasharon is one

Im not in Nigeria, secondly i'm not an atheist

freecocoa

lepasharon:


Im not in Nigeria, secondly i'm not an atheist

But you're a Nigerian.
So what/who are you?? (no disrespect, just curious)

blessedvisky:


But you're a Nigerian.
So what/who are you?? (no disrespect, just curious)

lol, im just non-religious

lepasharon:

Im not in Nigeria, secondly i'm not an atheist

What are you then?

Impossible. Our women are the guardians of our people. Any woman atheist in Nigeria must be a witch.

Aaronsrod:
Impossible. Our women are the guardians of our people. Any woman atheist in Nigeria must be a witch.

They exist

Ranchhoddas:
What are you then?

just non religious, maybe agnostic.

lepasharon:


lol, im just non-religious

Wow. I guess I'll have to strike you off my list then

blessedvisky:

Wow. I guess I'll have to strike you off my list then

lol what list

lepasharon:



lol what list

List of monikers to avoid on NL religion section

atheist is less appealing to ladies even in the western world.

blessedvisky:

List of monikers to avoid on NL religion section

Why...what have I done

lepasharon:


Why...what have I done

I said I'll strike you off the list, meaning I won't take cover when next I see you on religion section.
No need to be scared. No wrong has been

blessedvisky:

I said I'll strike you off the list, meaning I won't take cover when next I see you on religion section.
No need to be scared. No wrong has been

Oh I get it lool

We exist just that we don't go about announcing it. Although I just completed my transition from agnosticism.

JSoE:
We exist just that we don't go about announcing it.
Although I just completed my transition from agnosticism.

Nice! Transition to what? Full blown Dawkins-esque atheism?

Ranchhoddas:
Nice! Transition to what? Full blown Dawkins-esque atheism?

Lol. Yes, I've reached my destination.

ATR had me believing that there might be some god somewhere but I've come to link the complex dots and voila!

I made it to this point.

JSoE:


Lol. Yes, I've reached my destination.

ATR had me believing that there might be some god somewhere but I've come to link the complex dots and voila!

I made it to this point.

Hmm. Really brave. Wish I could do same. Are you now certain that there is no such thing as the supernatural?

My response below is not meant to start a heated argument. Just trying to get a conversation going. I want to understand where you are coming from. It's a bit long so please pardon me.

Question: why is it important to believe that the supernatural exists? Note that I'm not asking why is it important to believe in a specific deity like Jesus or Odin or Thor or Amadiora. I am asking what moral or ethical or logistical difference does it make if one believes in the existence of the supernatural or not?

For instance, I am an agnostic atheist yet I am open to the idea that there could be weird forces in the universe that we are not aware of yet. But this doesn't mean that I will believe any claims about the existence of the supernatural without evidence. In my view, the question about the existence of the "supernatural" is itself problematic because humans arbitrarily defined that term as an attempt to comprehend aspects of nature whose causality they couldn't understand. The fact that the word "supernatural" exists in language does not mean that it has to be real. We have many concepts that exist in language but aren't real (e.g. Santa Claus, tooth fairies, etc).

Being atheist doesn't mean that one is philosophically closed off. I would actually argue the opposite. Many people become atheist precisely because they were open to questioning notions that other humans held sacrosanct (e.g. the existence of god/s or the spirit world), then later finding out that said notions were fabricated and have zero evidence backing them. You don't have to be sure that the supernatural doesn't exist in order to become atheist.

Atheism just means lack of belief in deities, it says nothing about level of knowledge of the existence of deities (agnosticism vs gnosticism addresses that). I hold the notion that though it is philosophically possible that the supernatural exists (whatever that means), this doesn't mean that the supernatural interferes in the physical world or gives a crap about if we believe in it or not. And this doesn't mean that the supernatural is conscious, or a being, or anthropomorphic, etc. What does supernatural even tangibly mean?

I would ask you another question: how certain are you that we (humans) were not created by an invisible spider residing in the gaseous clouds of Jupiter? If you say "yes, I am certain that we were not created by Jupiter spiders", on what basis would you say that? You would probably say that because there is zero evidence supporting that statement and it thus sounds outrageous to you. This is the same logic that naturally leads to rational inquiry (and in many cases, atheism).

The theistic approach claims to know of the existence of the supernatural unless disproven. But this is not how inquiry works. We can't assert that a notion is true unless disproven. We need evidence (or unassailable logic) in order to assert that something is true. This is why the idea of the supernatural is a nonstarter (and to me, mostly unimportant) to most atheists.

I am also not saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence (which is why almost all atheists are "agnostic" atheist). My commentary is that from a rational perspective, we can't hold beliefs based on the criteria that they must be first disproved in order to be considered untrue. Based on the criteria of "you must first disprove", I could say that you are a witch and then say that if you can't disprove it then the accusation is true; but we know that it is almost impossible to prove to someone that you are not a witch! And this doesn't change the fact that you, the accused, are not a witch.

Ranchhoddas:
Hmm. Really brave. Wish I could do same. Are you now certain that there is no such thing as the supernatural?

Antiparticle:
My response below is not meant to start a heated argument. Just trying to get a conversation going. I want to understand where you are coming from. It's a bit long so please pardon me.

Question: why is it important to believe that the supernatural exists? Note that I'm not asking why is it important to believe in a specific deity like Jesus or Odin or Thor or Amadiora. I am asking what moral or ethical or logistical difference does it make if one believes in the existence of the supernatural or not?

For instance, I am an agnostic atheist yet I am open to the idea that there could be weird forces in the universe that we are not aware of yet. But this doesn't mean that I will believe any claims about the existence of the supernatural without evidence. In my view, the question about the existence of the "supernatural" is itself problematic because humans arbitrarily defined that term as an attempt to comprehend aspects of nature whose causality they couldn't understand. The fact that the word "supernatural" exists in language does not mean that it has to be real. We have many concepts that exist in language but aren't real (e.g. Santa Claus, tooth fairies, etc).

Being atheist doesn't mean that one is philosophically closed off. I would actually argue the opposite. Many people become atheist precisely because they were open to questioning notions that other humans held sacrosanct (e.g. the existence of god/s or the spirit world), then later finding out that said notions were fabricated and have zero evidence backing them. You don't have to be sure that the supernatural doesn't exist in order to become atheist.

Atheism just means lack of belief in deities, it says nothing about level of knowledge of the existence of deities (agnosticism vs gnosticism addresses that). I hold the notion that though it is philosophically possible that the supernatural exists (whatever that means), this doesn't mean that the supernatural interferes in the physical world or gives a crap about if we believe in it or not. And this doesn't mean that the supernatural is conscious, or a being, or anthropomorphic, etc. What does supernatural even tangibly mean?

I would ask you another question: how certain are you that we (humans) were not created by an invisible spider residing in the gaseous clouds of Jupiter? If you say "yes, I am certain that we were not created by Jupiter spiders", on what basis would you say that? You would probably say that because there is zero evidence supporting that statement and it thus sounds outrageous to you. This is the same logic that naturally leads to rational inquiry (and in many cases, atheism).

The theistic approach claims to know of the existence of the supernatural unless disproven. But this is not how inquiry works. We can't assert that a notion is true unless disproven. We need evidence (or unassailable logic) in order to assert that something is true. This is why the idea of the supernatural is a nonstarter (and to me, mostly unimportant) to most atheists.

I am also not saying that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence (which is why almost all atheists are "agnostic" atheist). My commentary is that from a rational perspective, we can't hold beliefs based on the criteria that they must be first disproved in order to be considered untrue. Based on the criteria of "you must first disprove", I could say that you are a witch and then say that if you can't disprove it then the accusation is true; but we know that it is almost impossible to prove to someone that you are not a witch! And this doesn't change the fact that you, the accused, are not a witch.

It's not important to believe anything. It's just that there are some phenomena that defy rational explanation and the 'hardcore' atheists have failed to provide any sensible explanation to these things other than saying they did not happen or that they were stage-managed or some other insensible thing. A pastor simply prays for a crippled man and he immediately rises and begins to walk, people who have known him for all of his crippled life are dumbstruck and livid with awe at the transformation they have seen. What manner of rational inquiry would you ask them to undertake? If this isn't supernatural, what is it then? The only other move you can make at this point will be to deny that the event ever happened?

Ranchhoddas:
It's not important to believe anything. It's just that there are some phenomena that defy rational explanation and the 'hardcore' atheists have failed to provide any sensible explanation to these things other than saying they did not happen or that they were stage-managed or some other insensible thing. A pastor simply prays for a crippled man and he immediately rises and begins to walk, people who have known him for all of his crippled life are dumbstruck and livid with awe at the transformation they have seen. What manner of rational inquiry would you ask them to undertake? If this isn't supernatural, what is it then? The only other move you can make at this point will be to deny that the event ever happened?

Sorry for budding in, but a simple way to address this phenomenon would be to ask yourself why the pastor didn't heal a widely known cripple, the Nigerian Paralympic team has a lot of them or why there is no confirmable proof that this person was truly crippled before the healing. You talk as if the so called relatives could not be paid off, did you do a background check on the individual or his family members.

JSoE:


Lol. Yes, I've reached my destination.

ATR had me believing that there might be some god somewhere but I've come to link the complex dots and voila!

I made it to this point.

can I pm you?

Lennycool:

Sorry for budding in, but a simple way to address this phenomenon would be to ask yourself why the pastor didn't heal a widely known cripple, the Nigerian Paralympic team has a lot of them or why there is no confirmable proof that this person was truly crippled before the healing. You talk as if the so called relatives could not be paid off, did you do a background check on the individual or his family members.

My point exactly. You'd deny it. It's your only play.