DeRay98:
All these arguments by atheists na pure intellectual calystenics.
People who consider themselves intellectuals then to see everything in life purely from intellectual angle. If you disagree they see you as intellectually deficient and intellectually lazy.
They pride themselves as superior beings without admitting it, the love to argue about everything and speak grammar. The unfortunate thing is thT by the reality done on them we won't see them to ask what happened. Una do oh.

I have seen a lot of people say so much without saying anything... This is one of that

Ezumakingsley:
You mean,you not being in sambisa forest fighting nigeria is as a result of social construct...give me practical examples

Geez i'll add my meme later

Deicide:
Why would i want to follow a person to see an "invisible pool" be like ur brain day pain you.

hehehehe

@ jonnydon22
Yes.

because like i said before, both God and religions are matters of public concern as we feel the effects of these two subjects none withstanding our position or opinion on them.

Therefore you are allowed to comment and have a say on them[/quote]







if I push further he'll play the victim card but yet happy to victimise others... The RELIGION/RELIGIOUS SECTION was on its own until you came to infect it with your disease(s). It gets even more unfortunate because atheism calls for greater public concern as its believers act passive, pretentious and victimised whenever efforts are made to discuss its effects which are mostly (if not ever) negative and destructive.

.

hopefulLandlord:


create a different thread and let's trash this

What! Again?

Samsimple:
I agree atheism is not a religion then what the hell are you guys f*cking doing in this motherf*cking religion section other than to disturb dem f*cking believers

There unfortunately isn't a Philosophy Section. We would gladly be there instead.

Deicide:
Its a position o

Atheism is like:
Person A: There is a pool at the back of my house
Person B: Ok lets go see
(We go to the back of the house and there is no pool at least non that i can see)
Person B: I dont see any pool
Person A: But the pool is right here
(person A quickly calls others to confirm if they can see any pool)
Others: We dont see any pool here
(then this stupid thing happens)
Person A: Ok proof to me that a pool is not at the back of my house?

I hope you get the drift?

I'm done with this, sorry.

hopefulLandlord:
all pedantry does is stop discussion in its tracks

this muddles up a lot of things as anything can be a religion, I'm extremely enthusiastic about eating food, so food is a religion?

Religion is not the same as being religious. I may religiously eat dinner at 6pm everyday. It does not mean I worship my 'dinner' or '6pm' nor is 'eating' my god.

Thanks CandidSeeker for pointing this out

CandidSeeker:


RELIGION MAY OR MAYNOT INVOLVE GOD.

Going By The Definitions Below, We Are All Religious.

An activity that someone is extremely enthusiastic about and does regularly. -Cambridge

A pursuit or interest followed with great devotion. -Oxford Living Dictionaries

A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects. -Dictionary.com

An interest, a belief or an activity that is very important to a person or group. -Webster

Geofavor:
Buddhism is Theistic. They call their God Buddha.

No they don't.

The Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama in Nepal around 2,500 years ago. He did not claim to be a god or a prophet. He was a human being who became Enlightened, understanding life in the deepest way possible. Source



There are numerous false understandings that claim the Buddha is god and should be worshipped. But they are in error.

hopefulLandlord:


BTW most of the "established definitions" you gave are highly shortsighted as I've explained

I see your angle to that.

I also do not rush to conform to 'society's received opinions' without personal research and analysis.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 KJV
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Lol!

Fegelfire:


Are you... mentally challenged? Do you not know how to google something or borrow an encyclopaedia from a local library?

Gautama Buddha was a man who lived in Eastern India around 2600 years ago, 600 years before Jesus and 1200 years before Mohammad. He did not claim to be the "son of god", nor did he claim to be a prophet. He merely began taught a practice and way of life that drew a compromise between the cruelty of Vedic practices (etc. caste systems) and the asceticism of East India (fasting, self-destruction, etc.).

Some Buddhists do believe in spirits and other such stuff, yes. But to call Buddhism "theistic" and that they see Gautama as "God" is straight nonsense.

Deicide:
This is more of a Biological argument and not a religious one but it still relates.

IF WE EVOLVE FROM MONKEYS WHY ARE THERE STILL MONKEYS?

This s#it must end 2018 cause it makes you wonder if the person even has a knowledge of what he/she is talking about.

You are naughty. lol

budaatum:

What! Again?

of course but that was when I didn't want the thread to become the usual back and forth but moving it to front-page made sure it did

hopefulLandlord:


pipe down, there's no ego at play haha, I just didn't see that part of your post and now I see it

I suspect there are also parts of the Bible and teachings of Jesus Christ that you 'just didn't see', if not, you will be one of the most effective Christians on earth.

I claim you and the other atheists for The Kingdom of God, by The Power of The Most High God, In The Name of Emmanuel Yeashua (Jesus) Christ.

-Peace.

budaatum:

No they don't.

The Buddha was born as Siddhartha Gautama in Nepal around 2,500 years ago. He did not claim to be a god or a prophet. He was a human being who became Enlightened, understanding life in the deepest way possible. Source



There are numerous false understandings that claim the Buddha is god and should be worshipped. But they are in error.

Okay.

Sapiosexuality:
What exactly is atheism if it is not a BELIEF?

The atheist will claim his/her position is based on the evidence and knowledge, and is not a belief.

I, for instance, do not believe there are no gods, I know there are no gods. However, watch the opprobrium I get for daring to claim to know such a thing.

butterflyl1on:


I am still waiting for your list of supernatural things an atheist can believe in and yet disbelieve in God who is also of the supernatural.

I hate to say, but I agree with you on this. Imagine the 'atheist' who believes in ghosts, or fairies, or aliens, or even, angels, but claims to not believe in the existence of gods! Can all the argument that atheist uses to disprove gods not be used to disprove the existence of ghosts, fairies, angels or aliens?

I'll say such an atheist suffers from cognitive dissonance!

CandidSeeker:


I responded to the OP with established definitions that you can verify.

You're here alleging pedantry, all because your ego will not allow you to accept that you are also religious.

Becareful not to generalize. I'm not one of those who says Christianity is not a religion, the bolded part of my post which you quoted says 'we are all religious.

-Peace.

We are not all religious. Me of us are so irreligous that dinner can be at any time.

butterflyl1on:


Why would person A claim to have a physical pool at the back of his house if it wasn't there to start with?

Physical things require a physical assessment. Trying to talk about spiritual things by using physical examples such as this is plain ridiculous.

So let me rephrase.

Person A: There is an invisible pool at the back of my house

Person B: Let's go see (he asks this despite knowing that the word INVISIBLE was used)

We go to the back of the house and of course no pool can be seen by person B

Person B: (still ignoring the use of the word INVISIBLE) says I cannot see any pool.

Person A: (who is equipped to see the invisible pool) but I can see it, how come you cannot?

Person B: (ignores the question and also the use of the word INVISIBLE and calls others to come and see if they can see what he cannot)

Others: we also cannot see the pool (this they claim by following person B who ignored telling them that the pool is invisible and also they need to have special equipment before they can see it).

Person B: walks away and calls person A Delusional (while still ignoring the use of the word INVISIBLE and observing the special equipment being used by person A)

"Person A: (who is equipped to see the invisible pool) but I can see it, how come you cannot? "

How? How is Person A equipped to see invisible pools? Does Person A not know Person B does not have "special equipment"? Why doesn't Person A not give Person B that equipment so Person B can see invisible pools?

budaatum:

We are not all religious. Me of us are so irreligous that dinner can be at any time.

We are where we are because of what we know; and we will remain there because of what we don't know.

To evolve is by choice.

budaatum:


"Person A: (who is equipped to see the invisible pool) but I can see it, how come you cannot? "

How? How is Person A equipped to see invisible pools? Does Person A not know Person B does not have "special equipment"? Why doesn't Person A not give Person B that equipment so Person B can see invisible pools?

Person A who told person B about the invisible pool did not tell him so person B can ask to see it.

What you should be asking should be " what sort of special equipment is this and how is it applied"? Is it an external or an internal equipment? If external then person A Can offer person B same equipment but if internal then person A Has to show person B how to get and apply this internal equipment at the request of person B. But does person B ask the right questions and apply the right methodology for viewing? No he does not but simply runs around saying he cannot see this invisible pool despite knowing there is special equipment needed and ignoring the fact that it is invisible.

So, are you suggesting I just say ok, when Person A says, "There is an invisible pool at the back of my house"? Imagine that person were ScienceWatch, he will then go about claiming buda agrees there is an invisible pool at the back of his house! I can't have that!

You pointed out that I should have noticed Person A said it was invisible. The reason I asked him to show it to me was to access the mental faculty of Person A. In my mind I'm thinking, "Is this person A mad, or does this Person A not know the meaning of invisible". It will confirm the former if Person A can't give me this special equipment so I can see the invisible pool. Perhaps the special equipment is invisible too?

I wonder, what happens when Person A dives into his invisible pool? Does some other special equipment stop him splitting his head on the paving I see in the back of his house?

Hopefully Person A does not bother my intelligence by asking me to dive into his invisible pool?

butterflyl1on:


Person A who told person B about the invisible pool did not tell him so person B can ask to see it.

What you should be asking should be " what sort of special equipment is this and how is it applied"? Is it an external or an internal equipment? If external then person A Can offer person B same equipment but if internal then person A Has to show person B how to get and apply this internal equipment at the request of person B. But does person B ask the right questions and apply the right methodology for viewing? No he does not but simply runs around saying he cannot see this invisible pool despite knowing there is special equipment needed and ignoring the fact that it is invisible.

budaatum:
So, are you suggesting I just say ok, when Person A says, "There is an invisible pool at the back of my house"? Imagine that person were ScienceWatch, he will then go about claiming buda agrees there is an invisible pool at the back of his house! I can't have that!

Ok BudaAtum. How about something visible to all Atheists. And please answer. What do you say to the cruel insanity of the prophet of modern Atheism? Dawkins has influenced an unsuspecting country, Finland to make it a criminal offence to teach children under 13 yrs old about God.

Finland has also agreed to shockingly make Marriage between two men legal. Men can now legally insert their lollipops into another mans excrement for comic relief. It is sad that these marriages will be eternally childless. It did not stop there.

Finland showed their appreciation for the Atheistic wisdom of Richard Dawkins when they went so far as to also legalize the marriage of two women.
These women will have to strap onto their waist, 1.5 meter long plastic electronic Dongles/Lollipops to penetrate their partners and consummate their eternally childless marriages. The immediate cost of consummating this type of marriage will be exponentially higher, Chinese goods dont last long.

Franco93:
Argument between atheist and theist never end. I've chosen to refrain from that

Theist dont really argue with Atheists, they just point out the dangers of Atheism yo society.

Please readers, go search the internet and google "atheism is a mental disease" and see how shockingly viral this is.
BudaAtum is bullying me because pointed out that experiential evidence agree with this.

I am registered on many internet sites and spread these public concerns for the benefit of humanity. No one has ever been so dumb as to bully me because these people are internet savvy. They clearly see the dangers of Atheism. Even atheist agree that something is wrong.

The modern day prophet of Atheism, Richard Dawkins has engineered a very bleak future for Finland. Now children under 13yrs can never be taught about God or enter a church, but they encourage Men who lustfully penetrate other men's excrement to now LEGALLY Marry.

Now women can also marry women. Sales of battery operated Dongles/plasic joysticks is projected to be a top seller in Finland because of the modern prophet of Atheism's Satanic influence in this unsuspecting country.

This brief example points to evidence that Atheism is founded on destructive Satanic spiritual forces. Atheism has been pressuring sane humanity to accept Satanic practices as normal, child pornography, anal sex, men marrying men, women marrying women, the destruction of all sacred doctrines and many more.

ScienceWatch:
Ok. How about something visible to all Atheists.

Where's the evidence for the report you promised to get me?

budaatum:


I wonder, what happens when Person A dives into his invisible pool? Does some other special equipment stop him splitting his head on the paving I see in the back of his house?

With all due respect Sir. You are confusing yourself Sir. You did say the pool is INVISIBLE. The paving is therefore a figment of your imagination Sir.

budaatum:


I wonder, what happens when Person A dives into his invisible pool? Does some other special equipment stop him splitting his head on the paving I see in the back of his house?

With all due respect Sir. You are confusing yourself Sir. In your argument with the esteemed Butterfkyl1on, you did say the pool is INVISIBLE.
In your confused example, Person A dives into the INVISIBLE pool. Then you say express concern that person A might spit his head on the paving you see at the back of the house.

FLAKKA symptoms Sir.

He said the pool was invisible, not me. He also said the pool exists and is there. I'm asking him to dive into his invisible pool and lets see if he will split his head on the concrete I say I see.

I tire for you. This conversation is above your head. You lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend it. Let butterflyl1on deal with it himself. Do not troll please.

ScienceWatch:
With all due respect Sir. You are confusing yourself Sir. In your argument with the esteemed Butterfkyl1on, you did say the pool is INVISIBLE.
In your confused example, Person A dives into the INVISIBLE pool. Then you say express concern that person A might spit his head on the paving you see at the back of the house.

FLAKKA symptoms Sir.

budaatum:

Where's the evidence for the report you promised to get me?

Lets use our imagination again. Lets say that the "Alleged" findings that Atheism is a mental disease is easy to find on the virtual reality pool called the world wide web. I sense imaginary hounding from you about this. Like a real Gestapo.

butterflyl1on:


I am still waiting for your list of supernatural things an atheist can believe in and yet disbelieve in God who is also of the supernatural.

There are many supernatural things Atheists believe in Sir. Colonizing Planet Mars to get away from a creator God, Getting Finland to criminalize and Ban teenagers from worshiping God, Legalize the marriage between two men etc. etc. They can only go this far because their belief in "No-god" is strong.

budaatum:
He said the pool was invisible, not me. He also said the pool exists and is there. I'm asking him to dive into his invisible pool and lets see if he will split his head on the concrete I say I see.

I tire for you. This conversation is above your head. You lack the intellectual capacity to comprehend it. Let butterflyl1on deal with it himself. Do not troll please.

Is'nt trolling the religious section of Nairaland a low-level Atheists dream. I see you actively trolling all over.
This conversation is actually above your head because you are the one seeing non-existent paving when there is non.
I wonder if Vazz noticed your slight of hand. Listen Budaatum, I have no problem with those that imagine things.