Manhunter™:
As an atheist, you have no true purpose in life as you are just a random occurrence. What gives you the drive to keep on living this meaningless life?

MY RELIGION,THE PROMISE OF GOOD TIDINGS IN THE AFTERLIFE IF I.......naw d problem is almost evry major religion has something that convince their practising followers...many even see revelations of and from deir patriarchs,...am i d only one or is it wired in humans to see and feel "heavenly" stuffs,circuits to which religions have activation formulae....P=IV at the same time equal to I^2R...likewise buddhist meditation(IV) opens "heavenly" perception(P) ,christian prayers (I^2R)do exactly d same with only faith(I) being common to both..........or am i gonna run mad finding dis God truth sef ..the more i search the more reason i see not to believe in any...the way to God,i vnt felt independently...dose that have felt it,have contradicting stories....WHAT THE Bleep IS DIS BLEEPING WORLD...WHY DID I COME SEF?LORD,IF U REALLY ARE,PLEASE CONVINCE ME O LORD.....Before i finally decide to jes LIVE AND LET LIVE......Pffeeeww

Reyginus: Okay. Jokes apart. How would you want me to define it?

did i write d dictionary? do it as dictionary did it. all of it.

@kasbeats

Hmm...

Some prayer that is. For your sake, I hope God reads posts on nairaland...

Truth is, in order to experience God, through Jesus Christ, you have to be sincerely born again - not just playing church...

Mix that in with faith, and you will experience God, and those doubts will disappear.

The question is - are you really born again? If so, hang some faith in there and take that prayer to God personally.

You'll get your own personal story.

Hang in there, K?

thehomer:

Final questions? Really? Have you forgotten the questions I asked that you didn't answer but instead started asking me some irrelevant questions?



What a joke. I guess you've finally seen the questions that scare you.

Lol. Another miss. I was to end on wednesday but I choose to add one day.

On a serious note, I think being an atheist is easier. The only difficult question I encountered must have been the fine-tuning argument by Manhunter. I would have replied by asctibing it to Natural Selection, but, I reconsidered.

Natural Selection experiences change in the building of simpler blocks of existence to their respective complexities. So it cannot be causeless and if it is not, it cannot be uncaused. There should be a reason why Natural Selection is happening. It cannot be because of Natural Selection. The 'why' or to put it better 'cause' held me back.

JMAN05:

did i write d dictionary? do it as dictionary did it. all of it.

Lol. Which of them?

Reyginus: Lol. Another miss. I was to end on wednesday but I choose to add one day.

On a serious note, I think being an atheist is easier. The only difficult question I encountered must have been the fine-tuning argument by Manhunter. I would have replied by asctibing it to Natural Selection, but, I reconsidered.

Natural Selection experiences change in the building of simpler blocks of existence to their respective complexities. So it cannot be causeless and if it is not, it cannot be uncaused. There should be a reason why Natural Selection is happening. It cannot be because of Natural Selection. The 'why' or to put it better 'cause' held me back.

Hey whatever floats your boat man. All I saw was someone finding it difficult to maintain a facade after blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Don't worry, I understood your fears I simply made you more aware of them.

thehomer:

Hey whatever floats your boat man. All I saw was someone finding it difficult to maintain a facade after blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Don't worry, I understood your fears I simply made you more aware of them.

Lol. You still miss the point. Try again!

Reyginus: Lol. Which of them?

Sir, when you are serious, we talk.

JMAN05:

Sir, when you are serious, we talk.

Please stop this feigning of anger when you know you can be better by explaining to me what you are talking about.

The thread is over, by the way.

Reyginus: Lol. You still miss the point. Try again!

You're welcome to enlighten me by answering the questions I presented to you here. Try not to run or dodge but answer them directly.

thehomer:

You're welcome to enlighten me by answering the questions I presented to you here. Try not to run or dodge but answer them directly.

I fear for people who already have a mindset made-up on what to agree on but still questions it even after agreeing. Read between these lines.

Create a thread. I'm through with this one.

Reyginus: Lol. Another miss. I was to end on wednesday but I choose to add one day.

On a serious note, I think being an atheist is easier. The only difficult question I encountered must have been the fine-tuning argument by Manhunter. I would have replied by asctibing it to Natural Selection, but, I reconsidered.

Natural Selection experiences change in the building of simpler blocks of existence to their respective complexities. So it cannot be causeless and if it is not, it cannot be uncaused. There should be a reason why Natural Selection is happening. It cannot be because of Natural Selection. The 'why' or to put it better 'cause' held me back.

The 'why' is because nothing is constant or perfect in nature, everything changes and so, only the best fitted and only the most stable continue

The 'cause' is the constant process of change, which is evolution.

@bold - its true, its very easy to be an atheist because god is easy to drop.

ooman:

The 'why' is because nothing is constant or perfect in nature, everything changes and so, only the best fitted and only the most stable continue

The 'cause' is the constant process of change, which is evolution.

@bold - its true, its very easy to be an atheist because god is easy to drop.

I don't understand your first two paragraphs.

Reyginus: I fear for people who already have a mindset made-up on what to agree on but still questions it even after agreeing. Read between these lines.

Create a thread. I'm through with this one.

From your recent comments, it looks like you're not yet through. Anyway, I already had a thread going on a related topic here. You're welcome to add your own insights.

thehomer:

From your recent comments, it looks like you're not yet through. Anyway, I already had a thread going on a related topic here. You're welcome to add your own insights.

I think a better suited thread will do. The thread in question is questioning the goodness of God and not his intent for committing genocide. Hope you know they are not on the same pedestal.

There is always an intent but determining whether it is good is another thing. I can get away easily with that thread when If I can answer by saying we bargained for intent and not goodness, but I don't want to. You can only protest that I am neglecting if it is good even when it is clear you never included it in your demands.

So for your own good, and the good of the argument it would well to define it properly from the outset.

Reyginus: I think a better suited thread will do. The thread in question is questioning the goodness of God and not his intent for committing genocide. Hope you know they are not on the same pedestal.

There is always an intent but determining whether it is good is another thing. I can get away easily with that thread when If I can answer by saying we bargained for intent and not goodness, but I don't want to. You can only protest that I am neglecting if it is good even when it is clear you never included it in your demands.

So for your own good, and the good of the argument it would well to define it properly from the outset.

His goodness is what I was also questioning here but again remember that you were the one who brought up this intent business not me. Since you wanted a new thread, here it is. You're welcome to address his intentions and goodness in that thread too.

thehomer:

His goodness is what I was also questioning here but again remember that you were the one who brought up this intent business not me. Since you wanted a new thread, here it is. You're welcome to address his intentions and goodness in that thread too.

Seen.

Reyginus: I don't understand your first two paragraphs.

its self explanatory, what exactly dont you get?

ooman:

its self explanatory, what exactly dont you get?

Lol. I understand now, I focused on the bold. But your answer is not saying anything new. It is still begging the repeating the problem in another manner.

which bold and what repeating question? I understand the answer is nothing new, but how it eludes you is surprising!

ooman: which bold and what repeating question? I understand the answer is nothing new, but how it eludes you is surprising!

Lol. ooman, we are not quarelling yet. Please, kpele, biko, abeg.

I hope this doesn't derail the thread.
This is what I mean. My problem with Natural Selection as encapsulated in that post was that, it cannot explain how things are designed. It only appears to be a name given to the structure of things as they appear.

You response was that it is the cause of Evolution and the constant process of change. If you look carefully you'd notice that the statement as presented by you appears to be tautological. It uses the question to answer itself. We know evolution happens because of natural selection. Your answer is simply put as, Natural selection determines how things are structured because of Natural Selection. Correct me I am wrong.

Reyginus: Lol. ooman, we are not quarelling yet. Please, kpele, biko, abeg.

I hope this doesn't derail the thread.
This is what I mean. My problem with Natural Selection as encapsulated in that post was that, it cannot explain how things are designed. It only appears to be a name given to the structure of things as they appear.

You response was that it is the cause of Evolution and the constant process of change. If you look carefully you'd notice that the statement as presented by you appears to be tautological. It uses the question to answer itself. We know evolution happens because of natural selection. Your answer is simply put as, Natural selection determines how things are structured because of Natural Selection. Correct me I am wrong.

"my problem with bread is that bread doesnt taste like tea"

Natural selection is not there to explain how things are designed just as bread is not there to taste like tea......


Natural selection explains how animals survive and change- nature favours animals with traits better suited to their environment


.....

Logicboy03:


"my problem with bread is that bread doesnt taste like tea"

Natural selection is not there to explain how things are designed just as bread is not there to taste like tea......


Natural selection explains how animals survive and change- nature favours animals with traits better suited to their environment


.....

Exactly my point. I agree with this dude for once.

Reyginus: Exactly my point. I agree with this dude for once.

Nice......real smooth.

Logicboy03:


Nice......real smooth.

Lol. Happy sunday.

Reyginus: Lol. ooman, we are not quarelling yet. Please, kpele, biko, abeg.

I hope this doesn't derail the thread.
This is what I mean. My problem with Natural Selection as encapsulated in that post was that, it cannot explain how things are designed. It only appears to be a name given to the structure of things as they appear.

You response was that it is the cause of Evolution and the constant process of change. If you look carefully you'd notice that the statement as presented by you appears to be tautological. It uses the question to answer itself. We know evolution happens because of natural selection. Your answer is simply put as, Natural selection determines how things are structured because of Natural Selection. Correct me I am wrong.

Yes you are wrong. Correctly put would be: Natural selection determines how things are structured because of the constant process of change.

It's as simple as that. The fact of the constancy of change is the cause of new things, and natural selection is the sustainer of the better ones.

Hope this works

ooman:

Yes you are wrong. Correctly put would be: Natural selection determines how things are structured because of the constant process of change.

It's as simple as that. The fact of the constancy of change is the cause of new things, and natural selection is the sustainer of the better ones.
Hope this works

No. It still doesn't work. The problem is, what causes this constant process of change?

Reyginus: No. It still doesn't work. The problem is, what causes this constant process of change?

imperfection, lack of purpose if you will, or we can start talking about mutations and chemical instability. Natural forces like pressure etc are the reason for chemical reactions, and mistakes causes mutation. Now you may want to ask what causes mutation again, then its because cell's copy mechanisms aren't perfect, or ask why pressure and the like initiate chemical reactions, its because chemicals react when they are not stable so they can be relieve the stress on them and remain in equilibrium. Nuclear reaction is another topic entirely where quantum physics explain the causes. Still, the general concept of a chemical reaction has been extended to non-chemical reactions between entities smaller than atoms, including nuclear reactions, radioactive decays, and reactions between elementary particles as described by quantum field theory.
There is no room for an uncaused cause. Stability is what nature lacks, should nature be stable, there will be no need or cause for new forms, so instability as brought about by pressure, temperature etc can as well be said to be a cause. Constant motion of particles can also be said to be a cause.

It all depends on the context and your purview

ooman:

imperfection, lack of purpose if you will, or we can start talking about mutations and chemical instability. Natural forces like pressure etc are the reason for chemical reactions, and mistakes causes mutation. Now you may want to ask what causes mutation again, then its because cell's copy mechanisms aren't perfect, or ask why pressure and the like initiate chemical reactions, its because chemicals react when they are not stable so they can be relieve the stress on them and remain in equilibrium. Nuclear reaction is another topic entirely where quantum physics explain the causes. Still, the general concept of a chemical reaction has been extended to non-chemical reactions between entities smaller than atoms, including nuclear reactions, radioactive decays, and reactions between elementary particles as described by quantum field theory.
There is no room for an uncaused cause. Stability is what nature lacks, should nature be stable, there will be no need or cause for new forms, so instability as brought about by pressure, temperature etc can as well be said to be a cause. Constant motion of particles can also be said to be a cause.

It all depends on the context and your purview

I don't want to derail this thread. But on a serious note, you still didn't say something new. Why do chemicals do these things is the question. Where they caused to do it and by what? If they are not caused, does that mean they are uncaused.