Hivi Hoja ni Nini ? Mbona kama unajiuliza maswali na kujijibu mwenyewe kwa perception yako ? (Ungebase kwenye Imani yako na kujibu kulingana na Imani kungekuwa hakuna tatizo), Kwahio the Onus is on you kuleta Imani yako na vipengele vyake ili watu waweze kuonyesha contradiction au kwanini sio factual na itendelea kubaki kama Imani...
Hizi labelling nyingine sijui Atheists n.k. ni kudilute hoja na kwenda further and further from the lecture at hand..., Wewe unachokiamini (ni Imani yako wala hakuna wa kukupinga) ila Imani sio Factual na ili tuibadilishe iwe factual you need to come with concrete evidences..., zaidi ya hapo watafiti na watu ambao ndio wamekuwa Giants katika Human Civilization wataendelea kutafuta (Seeker of Truth and Knowledge); Na binafsi bora niendelee kuwa na the latter kuliko indoctrinated hypocrites who base their lives and arguments on self fulfilling prophecies...; Sababu tungebakia na hao watu we would have been stuck on the times when their believes became mainstream (be it Spanish Inquisition or Holly Wars) take your pick...
My friend
Logikos, it is intellectually disingenuous to reduce faith to mere subjective perception while simultaneously asserting that empirical inquiry—however noble—monopolizes truth. The very foundation of epistemology recognizes that human understanding is shaped by axioms, be they scientific postulates or theological doctrines. To dismiss faith as "not factual" is, ironically, a presupposition, one that ignores the fact that even the most rigorous scientific paradigms evolve and, at times, collapse under the weight of new evidence.
Regarding the concept of "onus," it is misplaced to suggest that belief must be substantiated within the confines of materialist empiricism to be deemed legitimate. The nature of metaphysical truth claims does not conform to the reductionist demands of empirical verification alone. Just as axiomatic truths in mathematics are not "factual" in a materialist sense but remain indisputable within their logical frameworks, so too do theological constructs hold weight within their own epistemic paradigms.
Furthermore, the argument that labeling (e.g., "atheists") dilutes discourse is self-refuting, as the individual making this claim engages in a parallel act of labeling by categorizing believers as "indoctrinated hypocrites." If intellectual inquiry is truly the aim, then fairness demands an acknowledgment that ideological biases exist on all sides, and dismissing faith as an intellectual dead end is as dogmatic as the fundamentalism one claims to oppose.
Finally, the invocation of historical atrocities as a cautionary tale against faith is an overused and historically selective argument. While religious institutions have undoubtedly been complicit in dark chapters of history, so too have secularist ideologies—Stalinism, Maoism, and other aggressively anti-theistic regimes—perpetrated atrocities under the guise of human progress. The issue, therefore, is not faith itself, but the human proclivity for dogma, be it religious or secular.
The real question is this:
if truth is the ultimate pursuit, is it intellectually honest to dismiss the epistemic foundations of billions merely because they do not conform to one's preferred framework? True seekers of knowledge do not merely refute—they engage, analyze, and acknowledge the limitations of their own paradigms.