CatfishBilly:

Engaging vaxx is futile, trust me. Been there. Dude is impervious to anything that remotely looks like a correction to his erroneous beliefs.

that sound like a proud statement.... The purpose of debate is to let the opponent sees his or her own flaws by making your own argument flawless. And not by telling him you are better than him. It is very absurd in thinking, For you to nurse the mind that your are better than your opponent in the first place. ,it will mean there is nothing to talk about. Just like you openly told me with your foul mouth, ,you want to school yourself..I wonder how you guys learn...since you already belive you know it all..keep to your intelligence it is not useful for me...

Deicide:
The thread topic reads "Atheism By Definition Is Problematic" but it's funny how the op keeps using the etymology of the word Atheism to argue what is the point of this thread

that is the word I can use .....nothing more....unless you coined another word that will best describe atheism believes....since the aim of the op isn't meant to look for alternative name for atheism but to categorically tell readers that the the name atheism in meaning is problematic...

vaxx:
that sound like a proud statement.... The purpose of debate is to let the sees his or her own flaws by poinying making your own argument flawless. And not by telling him you are better than him. It is very absurd in thinking, For you to nurse the mind that your are better than your opponent in the first place. ,it will mean there is nothing to talk about. Just like you openly told me with your foul mouth, ,you want to school yourself..I wonder how you guys learn...since you already belive you know it all..keep to your intelligence it is not useful for me...

You came to my profession and was making outlandish claims, you think I'll just close my eyes and watch you carry on? No wonder I said you're impervious to corrections. You're doing it all over again.
And I've no way suggested that I'm better than you in the post you quoted. Wonder where you got that from.

vaxx:
And that make you a moral atheist.... Pls study my op....I gave a defination for athesim base on the dogmatism...


.no.....bro....you are changing the wheel .....if you are both .....then it is irrational... Check my op...it is there

Bro, I'm an atheist becos of all the reasons you can think of, especially when no one has shown God to exist in any manner... both physically and demonstratively.

You can pick which ever you want... And your op isn't explicit enough on what you mean by moral atheist... Last time I checked, those trying to prove that a God exists are the ones bringing up different arguments...

vaxx:
that is the word I can use .....nothing more....unless you coined another word that will best describe atheism believes....since the aim of the op isn't meant to look for alternative name for atheism but to categorically tell readers that the the name atheism in meaning is problematic...

Lol watin concern me

CatfishBilly:

You came to my profession and was making outlandish claims, you think I'll just close my eyes and watch you carry on? No wonder I said you're impervious to corrections. You're doing it all over again.
And I've no way suggested that I'm better than you in the post you quoted. Wonder where you got that from.

I just said it .... Keep to your intelligence.... Your aim is to look for someone to correct....am sorry to dissapoint you.that isn't me...engaged your peers....until you learn how to show courtesy with your written.... You have nothing to offer me....and if this is your way of life in reality....I will advice you to adjust...even if my claim are outlandish as you claim..it is logical for you to point out my errors not trying to show off you are better...i read one of your thread with a lady who also claim to be in the same profession with you.... I see the way the lady point out your error without bashing you.... From that thread ....I doubt you are whom you called yourself....that lady really do an interesting job...


My first engagement with you was very poor...

ScepticalPyrrho:
Bro, . Last time I checked, those trying to prove that a God exists are the ones bringing up different arguments...

pls can you explain this statement of yours better ?I feel your politness....we may derail the topic and let talk why you should believe In God

vaxx:
pls can you explain this statement of yours better ?I feel your politness....we may derail the topic and let talk why you should believe In God

There are different types of arguments for the existence of God... All of which can be classified under one of the following; the moralist argument, the teleological argument; argument based on causality, argument based on conscience; the ontological argument; argument based on personal experience and Pascal's wager...

There is no argument you come up with which doesn't fall under one of these categories. You can check it out.

All combined havent provided reliable proof of existence of any God. Except I was going to become sentimental and emotional in my conclusion. Because the idea of life without any higher being who is all loving and waiting to make us suffer less is only for the strong hearted. Many cannot live wit such assumption. So, they believe anyway, knowing these argument arent proofs in the end.

vaxx:
I just said it .... Keep to your intelligence.... Your aim is to look for someone to correct....am sorry to dissapoint you.that isn't me...engaged your peers....until you learn how to show courtesy with your written.... You have nothing to offer me....and if this is your way of life in reality....I will advice you to adjust...even if my claim are outlandish as you claim..it is logical for you to point out my errors not trying to show off you are better...i read one of your thread with a lady who also claim to be in the same profession with you.... I see the way the lady point out your error without bashing you.... From that thread ....I doubt you are whom you called yourself....that lady really do an interesting job...


My first engagement with you was very poor...

Errors? Without bashing me? Please I'll like to see those errors.
Whether you doubt who I claim to be is your freaking cup of tea. Just know that when you come to my profession and start spewing ignorance, I'll be there to set you straight with as much rudeness as possible since that's how you want it.

I don't know why the ignorant ones are always the loudest.

CatfishBilly:

Errors? Without bashing me? Please I'll like to see those errors.
Whether you doubt who I claim to be is your freaking cup of tea. Just know that when you come to my profession and start spewing ignorance, I'll be there to set you straight with as much rudeness as possible since that's how you want it.

I don't know why the ignorant ones are always the loudest.

Guy chill. As someone whose profession somebody may exhibit some ignorance of, when having an exchange with that person, being polite IS A MUST and shows evidence of the knowledge you have in your field.

When you were in medical school did your lecturer call you names and was he or she rude to you when you exhibited obvious ignorance about certain aspects of medicine or asked "ignorant " questions?

Hostility takes the focus away from the correction. It now focuses on the vice. Vaxx is right. There are more "professional " methods of responding but you are obviously deliberately choosing not to apply such tact. That is wrong!

ScepticalPyrrho:

There are different types of arguments for the existence of God... All of which can be classified under one of the following; the moralist argument, the teleological argument; argument based on causality, argument based on conscience; the ontological argument; argument based on personal experience and Pascal's wager...

There is no argument you come up with which doesn't fall under one of these categories. You can check it out.

I got your stand...if we are to categories your labelling... You will see conscience , teleological argument falling very well with religious belive while that of pascar wager also fall into religious believe...and likewise personal experience....

Ontological argument (meta physics) also share the same similarity with cosmology and epistemology.... This is a branch of natural philosophy....which is the same thing with natural science....


Get what my op did...the op clearly state the reasons why atheism reject god existence from the main argument of atheism...which fall into scientific and moral argument.... And this what your are still telllimg me ....don't you get what the op did? Telll me I can give a summary...

vaxx:
I got your stand...if we are to categories your labelling... You will see conscience , teleological argument falling very well with religious belive while that of pascar wager also fall into religious believe...and likewise personal experience....

Ontological argument (meta physics) also share the same similarity with cosmology and epistemology.... This is a branch of natural philosophy....which is the same thing with natural science....


Get what my op did...the op clearly state the reasons why atheism reject god existence from the main argument of atheism...which fall into scientific and moral argument.... And this what your are still telllimg me ....don't you get what the op did? Telll me I can give a summary...

You should also consider the fact that these arguments are not originated by atheists, neither are they called atheistic arguments. Rather they are theistic arguments challenged by atheists for lacking reliability. So you would be wrong to classify atheists who are the responders to these arguments and not originators.

Atheist are people who don't believe God(s) exist. The invalidity of all the above listed theistic arguments only strengthens my position.

CatfishBilly:

Errors? Without bashing me? Please I'll like to see those errors.
Whether you doubt who I claim to be is your freaking cup of tea. Just know that when you come to my profession and start spewing ignorance, I'll be there to set you straight with as much rudeness as possible since that's how you want it.

I don't know why the ignorant ones are always the loudest.

I will always welcome you......but dont be suprise if you are exposed.....

Ignorance isn't a disease.... It is when you know it and you couldn't take a step further to learn again...that is when it become a problem...as for the ignorance fellow , he could really become a learned person since he is ready to learn and do not put himself to a position of I know it all.

I can feel it, my words Pierce your skin...

vaxx:
I got your stand...if we are to categories your labelling... You will see conscience , teleological argument falling very well with religious belive while that of pascar wager also fall into religious believe...and likewise personal experience....

Ontological argument (meta physics) also share the same similarity with cosmology and epistemology.... This is a branch of natural philosophy....which is the same thing with natural science....


Get what my op did...the op clearly state the reasons why atheism reject god existence from the main argument of atheism...which fall into scientific and moral argument.... And this what your are still telllimg me ....don't you get what the op did? Telll me I can give a summary...

Also... All this arguments are not science based... They are called arguments because we've all come to accept that there is no way anyone can scientifically prove God's existence.

None of the arguments follows the scientific method of proofs.

ScepticalPyrrho:
You should also consider the fact that these arguments are not originated by atheists, neither are they called atheistic arguments. Rather they are theistic arguments challenged by atheists for lacking reliability. So you would be wrong to classify atheists who are the responders to these arguments and not originators.

Atheist are people who don't believe God(s) exist. The invalidity of all the above listed theistic arguments only strengthens my position.

well, these argument may come from a theistic fellow...for atheist to consider the argument a flaw argument.... They need too look at the premises of the argument and see if it does not agree with their reason for being atheist...an atheist may respond by telling me he isn't an atheist becuse of the reason I post forward.... He may bring the reasons.... And reasons will be compared with my op and if it disagree with it...then my op is a flawed argument.... That is what you are doing.... And your argument hasn't fall out of the op definition...

ScepticalPyrrho:
Also... All this arguments are not science based... They are called arguments because we've all come to accept that there is no way anyone can scientifically prove God's existence.

None of the arguments follows the scientific method of proofs.

this isn't true, religious fellow do use complexity of a design in argument.... This is empirical argument ....it is testable and measurable

butterflyl1on:


Guy chill. As someone whose profession somebody may exhibit some ignorance of, when having an exchange with that person, being polite IS A MUST and shows evidence of the knowledge you have in your field.

When you were in medical school did your lecturer call you names and was he or she rude to you when you exhibited obvious ignorance about certain aspects of medicine or asked "ignorant " questions?

Hostility takes the focus away from the correction. It now focuses on the vice. Vaxx is right. There are more "professional " methods of responding but you are obviously deliberately choosing not to apply such tact. That is wrong!

that dude is looking for someone is going to correct...he is better than anybody on nairaland....

vaxx:
that dude is looking for someone is going to correct...he is better than anybody on nairaland....

A lot of the atheists actually believe they are and that is just a stupid and pathetic mentality to have. When anyone is like that all they want is to talk and you must listen. Even before you speak they have concluded in their hearts that all you have to say would not make sense and is stupid. This is what i have seen on Nairaland within the short time I have been here.

CatfishBilly:

Engaging vaxx is futile, trust me. Been there. Dude is impervious to anything that remotely looks like a correction to his erroneous beliefs.

I was flummoxed by his response, it's like he never even read my post at all before clicking the "quote" button

hopefulLandlord:


I was flummoxed by his response, it's like he never even read my post at all before clicking the "quote" button

I read your write up....but for the sake of enlightenment.... Do you even consider my reply....i believe we are learning here...if you wish to contribute ,bring out the flaws in my argument just like the way I did to yours.... Do not assume you are correct... You may be learning a new thing from me...

vaxx:
this isn't true, religious fellow do use complexity of a design in argument.... This is empirical argument ....it is testable and measurable

First of all, there is nothing like empirical arguments...

Arguments from design are just postulations there nothing testable about it. There is a reason we call scientific proofs as findings or discoveries... Have any theist discovered God through an argument?

Where have men tested or measured any design to discover God?

You are wrongly equating the postulations based on reasons to scientific statements which can be substantiated because the objects of discussions are concrete.

vaxx:
I read your write up....but for the sake of enlightenment.... Do you even consider my reply....i believe we are learning here...if you wish to contribute ,bring out the flaws in my argument just like the way I did to yours.... Do not assume you are correct... You may be learning a new thing from me...

I did consider your reply bro but such a reply can only come from someone who didn't read my post, in fact that was what made me give up

you didn't bring out any flaw in my argument, my post there had no flaws cuz it was meant to simply show exceptions, I however brought out a flaw in yours aka "Etymological Fallacy"

I'm not assuming anything and I learn everyday too, from many people

butterflyl1on:


A lot of the atheists actually believe they are and that is just a stupid and pathetic mentality to have. When anyone is like that all they want is to talk and you must listen. Even before you speak they have concluded in their hearts that all you have to say would not make sense and is stupid. This is what i have seen on Nairaland within the short time I have been here.

it shows that their path to atheism isn't even logical..... Most of this dude are just arrogant to religion nothing more it isn't because they are intelligent ........I can bet you, most of the argument is copy and paste....though I exempt one person....agentofalllah....


The last time you engage that dude on design argument.... You point out a lot of his error..instead of him to agree...he turn it to a insult contest....

ScepticalPyrrho:

First of all, there is nothing like empirical arguments...

Arguments from design are just postulations there nothing testable about it. There is a reason we call scientific proofs as findings or discoveries... Have any theist discovered God through an argument?

Where have men tested or measured any design to discover God?

You are wrongly equating the postulations based on reasons to scientific statements which can be substantiated because the objects of discussions are concrete.

Arguments from design are testable and provable but the question is, are they acceptable by someone who already cancelled them out?

vaxx:
it shows that their path to atheism isn't even logical..... Most of this dude are just arrogant to religion nothing more it isn't because they are intelligent ........I can bet you, most of the argument is copy and paste....though I exempt one person....agentofalllah....


The last time you engage that dude on design argument.... You point out a lot of his error..instead of him to agree...he turn it to a insult contest....

The last option they have when no longer able to hold the discussion is to resort to insults like, this is stupid, do you even reason?, this is totally illogical, you must be delusional, you are saying nonsense, etc just to give the reader a false impression that they are smarter and you are simply saying rubbish.

They are known for being Defensive narcissists. It's common knowledge.

ScepticalPyrrho:

First of all, there is nothing like empirical arguments...

Arguments from design are just postulations there nothing testable about it. There is a reason we call scientific proofs as findings or discoveries... Have any theist discovered God through an argument?

Where have men tested or measured any design to discover God?

You are wrongly equating the postulations based on reasons to scientific statements which can be substantiated because the objects of discussions are concrete.

according to Wikipedia...this is what empirical mean



Empirical evidence, also known as sensory experience, is the knowledge received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation. The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).

When religious foks argue using complexity in the design... They are not testing God... They are testing the complexity in the design....

hopefulLandlord:


I did consider your reply bro but such a reply can only come from someone who didn't read my post, in fact that was what made me give up

you didn't bring out any flaw in my argument, my post there had no flaws cuz it was meant to simply show exceptions, I however brought out a flaw in yours aka "Etymological Fallacy"

I'm not assuming anything and I learn everyday too, from many people

peace bro....

vaxx:
peace bro....

same here

butterflyl1on:


Arguments from design are testable and provable but the question is, are they acceptable by someone who already cancelled them out?

And what do they prove?

ScepticalPyrrho:
And what do they prove?

They prove that there is intelligence behind the design and we term this intelligence to be God. You can claim it proves something else to you which isn't God but that's your opinion

ScepticalPyrrho:
And what do they prove?

I am creating a new thread.... Where we can have a philosophical debate...I will give you a mention....just I and you...do you accept the challenge...

vaxx:
I am creating a new thread.... Where we can have a philosophical debate...I will give you a mention....just I and you...do you accept the challenge...

Nope, the argument never ends... That proves God's existence cannot be proven by arguments.