Atheists And Their Stupidity - Religion (9) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Atheists And Their Stupidity (15067 Views)
Atheists and Traditionalists Come In. / Question For Atheists And Religious People / A Chalenge For Huxley,kay 17,ogaga4luv And Other Atheists And Satanists (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) ... (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by slyfox5555: 5:52pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien Whether you truly did isn't even the issue, it's your lack of understanding... Ha - the man that claims humans having brains is not a true scientific statement  . Bros - I rest my caseWell I'm not exactly impressed by your knowledge nor feel as though I'm having an educated argument.. Your feelings are the least of my concern mate This is a fallacious view...the fact that people die tells us nothing about the reality we experience. For all you know,you could be the only thing that exists and I may just be a computer program...can that be falsified? That fact that you put a bullet through your brain confirms the reality to others that you are dead - You can define what death is to you, that is your cup of tea; the fact is that in 7 billion people reality - you are dead. So, keep watching the matrix. I am still interested in you trying the experiment though. theories aren't absolutes...we even have evidence that indicates the moon wasn't always there to begin with....so does it count as true when we can deduce it not always been there? so can your statement be true taking time into account? or can you only speak of the time you deduced the moon being there Whether the moon wasn't there in the 1st place is irrelevant. The statement that the moon revolve around the earth and the earth revolves around the sun is a scientific absolute - is that untrue or inaccurate? You can continue to practice intellectual dishonestly; it doesn't change the moon revolving around the sun or humans having brains. Again - these are not theories oh Bros. I keep asking you, can you falsify them Can you prove they aren't a simulation? Yes, I can - can you volunteer as the subject matter lol Please indulge me - can you show us humans that doesn't have two arms, two legs and a brain? And again you misunderstand simple concepts, absolutes of reality based on scientific theories are not known to always be true....this goes against uniformitarianism(a fundamental axiom if science) Humans having brains is not a THEORY OH! The earth revolving around the sun is not a THEORY Bros. Why do you insist of being stup.id? Really?could you negate the possibility of me being a computer program? I don't want to get into an arbitrary argument with you. Please define the parameters of you as a computer program. And are you certain that humans will forever be and was always a product of a male and female without the core assumption of uniformitarianism? Bros - abeg go and sit down. You are showing how much you know of the subject matter. Can you please falsify what I have said. And yes - humans born of other humans will remain humans. Your parents were humans and so are you, your kids will be humans and so will their kids - that is a truth statement I cited Hinduism... Really - that is your response? Admittance to mistakes is not a problem for me....it's just so amusing that you think science can prove what we experience is reality when it can't...I've been using solipsism all the while watch you try to combat the incomprehensible... Haha - you keep shooting yourself in the foot. Let us try your Solipsism. I will ask a question - Is Barak Obama the president of the United States of America? All humans have brains right? Try to wiki anencephaly Cha, stupi.dity on a whole new level - can you show me where it says humans are not born with brains or there are no humans with brains? During Embryogenesis, their are stages where we don't have brains or they are not developed yet. My point was simple - humans have brains, two hands, two legs. I challenged you to show me a human with NO brains and all you came up with was Anencephaly . You can play the semantics game again but all you have been successful at doing is showing how narrow minded and deluded you are. Remember what I said - you want to talk just because you have a mouth.
It's pretty simple to test this, again one of the reasons I like math. We will create two sets with 3 values davieninflation = {5,3,8} daviensolipsism = {2,9,6} The question is, are there any common elements between sets davieninflation and daviensolipsism. So, we create a 3rd set to capture this and call it daviennobrain. We represent it as such: daviennobrain = {} It means the 3rd set daviennobrain is a null set, it contains no common elements between the 1st two sets. We don't say daviennobrain contains zero because zero is a value. Another example showing the sets containing zero: davieninflation = {5,3,8,0} daviensolipsism = {2,0,9,6} In this case, daviennobrain is not a null set as it has a common element between the first two sets i.e. the value zero. I have explained to you that zero is a real number in math and doesn't represent nothing. Common notations for the empty set include "{}", "∅", and " ". The Refer to the explanation I gave above. True on "nothing"don't know about rocks growing legs and walking I am sure you know what metaphoric expressions are Bros And those standards(which you are unaware of) prompt "nothing"to be quantified.. Nothing is not quantifiable - if it was, we will not call it nothing. Infiniti is not quantifiable, if it was, we will not call it infiniti. The idea that "nothing" can be quantified or measured is an invention by scientist that want to support certain theories they adhere to. It's true darkness doesn't exist,but because it can't be measured isn't the reason why it doesn't exist...would you say because we can't measure a single photon therefore photons don't exist? A photon can be observed, we know it's properties. The same is not the case with darkness! That was my point. I had said that in response to you saying - Darkness can be expressed in so many ways - No, it can't!. So, don't try and change the post in another direction I did,again what's your point? Did you actually read the link I posted? So how is theology greater than science? (note: you claimed it was)...and has theology proven "god" exists or presuppose it does?  Can you please show me where I used the words - theology is greater than science? |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 7:13pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
Slyfox55555 Your post above is an incoherent pile of ignorance.... For one, you don't even know what solipsism is and why you can't make absolutes from scientific theories... You are unaware of the fact that science being "realism" cannot even say a single thing about "solipsism"....realism and solipsism are two sides of a coin.. No knowledge is ever absolute otherwise theories would be complete.... On the grounds that you think spotting oneself is "proof" for reality then I am sad to say that you have no knowledge of science... Observations and demonstrations aren't what science is about but using the axiom of uniformitarianism to predict data backwards and forwards in time... And the fact that something can't be falsified doesn't make it true....for instance can you falsify unicorns? Moreover the moon revolving round the earth is a statement based on the likelihood of events....that is, it is most likely the moon will evolve round the earth like it usually does....now if I pose a question that would it revolve for an infinite amount of time you are forced to say-no,so the idea that the moon revolves round the earth would be untrue at a certain amount of time... And when you compare that to my example of an absolute like "all bachelors are unmarried"....that statement doesn't change because those words are definitional.... Lets forward into the future....and if this future contains humans that are born in artificial wombs would your claim about male and female being needed to produce a human still be correct... And in your plea to appear learned you keep showing your ignorance...The fact that 0 in mathematics represents nothing doesn't mean it's not still a number.... Modern usage There are different words used for the number or concept of zero depending on the context. For the simple notion of lacking, the words nothing and none are often used. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_(number) You keep tap dancing around admitting that "0" is a digit used for "nothing" And I'd like to correct this your below comment.. I'd like to correct the bolded, the fact that "nothing" is commonly used by lay people to cite a state of non-existence says little about "nothing" being quantified.....take for example "chaos/disorder"... In common terms "chaos/disorder" is a state of confusion, but in academic terms in mathematics chaos is; Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory Are you going to argue that they are using "chaos" wrongly because it doesn't refer to the common use of the term? Or maybe lets take a look at physics, where "chaos/disorder" is In thermodynamics, entropy is commonly associated with the amount of order, disorder, or chaos in a thermodynamic system . http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder) Doesn't it strike you as odd as to why something understood intuitively as "confusion"can be quantified?(I.e "chaos/disorder"is measured in joules/K) In fact "total internal disorder" is synonymous to the term "equilibrium"....by your logic since the common term is "confusion" they're using it wrong right? Have you seen why I called you a dimwit?The synonymous use of "total internal disorder" to "equilibrium" causes confusion for people like you... (since the regular term isn't what it's expressed to be)" In the context of entropy, "perfect internal disorder" is synonymous with "equilibrium", but since that definition is so far different from the usual definition implied in normal speech, the use of the term in science has caused a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding." http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(order_and_disorder) Anyhoo I'll leave you to your ignorance... 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 7:21pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien: stop liking your or sharing your own post. I asked you are question since when distant family or relative become evolution? 1 Like |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 7:33pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
benalvino2:Since the term "common descent"....try understanding a topic before confusing yourself... " it said distant family of crock... which means it is like a Dog andIn your plea to quickly dismiss the topic(like an ardent creationist) you admitted your own folly... And since you know dogs and wolves are related then you admit to the distant relatives of these  http://listverse.com/2012/09/28/10-distant-human-ancestors-and-relatives/ |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by DieeDiee: 7:56pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 9:20pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien: finally with the link you just post I can now see you believe any lie scientist tell you just because they are trying to prove we are not created by God but by chance.... lmao.... you are trying too hard. |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 9:41pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
benalvino2:Anything that goes against your fairy tales are ofcourse to you a "lie" so I'm not surprised.... You couldn't think of anything else having admitted common descent.... I'm guessing these sources lie too...and I didn't know fossils lied too.. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casineria http://arrow.latrobe.edu.au:8080/vital/access/manager/Repository/latrobe:19649 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edaphosauridae http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.631042 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caseidae http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinocephalia http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12052-009-0117-4 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pristerognathus http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/predinosaurreptiles/p/pristerognathus.htm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynognathus http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1971.tb02189.x/abstract;jsessionid=4CD43ED5C7DE31A9CF6C32A26169B1E0.f02t01 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multituberculata http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-4983.00185/abstract http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiadapis http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v498/n7452/full/nature12200.html http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fajpa.1330890409 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_(primate) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016%2F0047-2484(87)90062-5 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.1330340205/abstract |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 11:32pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
davien: all the link you provide none can prove evolution... there is no evidence all your beliefs as senseless theories like big bang and now evolution. hahaha |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 11:53pm On Jan 12, 2015 |
benalvino2:like I said, you're a troll... |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by benalvino2(m): 12:08am On Jan 13, 2015 |
davien: how |
| Re: Atheists And Their Stupidity by davien(m): 10:19am On May 18, 2015 |
davien: |
(1) (2) (3) ... (6) (7) (8) (9) (Reply)
What Will Man Be Doing In Heaven/Paradise? / Help Needed Concerning Restitution / Testimony Time!! Let's Share What God Has Done For Us This Week
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 73 |