Tufanja:


1) partly true, although off point, I just gave a general observation
2) you can research that...just go through all the atheist-items...or let's design a research plan

it's impossible to figure out a research plan/methodology, if you not giving me the research topic.

Tufanja:


1) wrong, "label" is used correctly here. Please look it up. By the way, thanks for reading all my contributions and for making an analysis of my intelligence and language use. Nobody is flawless in english, but you are really seeing the mote in your sisters eye without noticing the beam in your own. I m fluent in 3 other foreign languages, so if you prefer we can shift language so that we can keep on topic.

2) read back your postings and notice how you constantly try to profile yourself by mentioning smartness and intelligence...you are also mentioning "manipulating weak minds"...it all betrays and radiates an inferiority complex and a desire to make yourself count, to profile yourself as belonging to the smart ones, the intellectual atheists... On top of this, you found it relevant to judge me on smartness and intelligence, to position me lower than you, like I care. Sorry, I don't.

1- you could as well write in other 3 languages you fluent in so I don't get the chance to figure out your flaw(s) and when you do, I would make you see reasons why english is a kind of universal accepted lingua franca for Anglophone countries such as Nigeria.

2- I imploy you read back my writes up and figure or quote a line where have written to be smart/intelligent, Matter of fact, I remember I wrote a line depicting me to be ignorant if I claim to be intelligent. Furthermore, Inferiority complex a characteristic of low self esteem and a product of being what you not.

Did I ever make you understand am atheist? Yes, I did.

Have I ever written to you,claiming to be more intelligent that you are? No, I never did.

What brought about the "manipulating of weak minds" write up? It was as a result of stating adverse effect on religion on people mind and psychic.

Did I really judge you on your smartness/intelligent level? Yes I did once, just to pep up your brain to think my way to see my views like an astronomy with the same telescopic point(s) am giving.

Did I do that to bring you below me? No! Because obviously everybody can have their own opinion but nobody can have their own fact.

So I wonder why you writing untrue things about me same time acting out the inferiority complex you predicted I could be. Never knew you good at playing dual roles, Nollywood needs new set of actresses for auditioning.

@ johnydon22

Yes boss, the party went a bit out of hand. You're right in that.

1) Maybe you can help to answer the question what role emotions play in atheism (where do emotions come from in the first place?) and why a lot of debates with atheists end up with them becoming emotional rather than staying rational. Maybe it's coincidence, but we should look into it anyway to see if there is a pattern. Because it has a remarkable parallel with the emotions that pop up in debates about faith or between denominations. While atheism is said and supposed to not be a religion, it should be emotions free, shouldnt it?

2) Related to the original topic of the OP. It is in a woman's womb that life grows... probably that place offers the best conditions for human cells to grow and to become a person...for that fact alone, the question why female atheists seems to be scarce is relevant. Those who carry life might have some more clues about the nature of life, also in a spiritual way. Isn't it weird that we don't study this breeding ground of human life more profoundly, not only in biological sense but also in the other -in all its- dimensions of being? Every time I see a man being born out of a woman, I realize that a man can only really find the answers about life through a woman. Just my modest opinion.

Tufanja:
@ johnydon22
Yes boss, the party went a bit out of hand. You're right in that.
1) Maybe you can help to answer the question what role emotions play in atheism (where do emotions come from in the first place?) and why a lot of debates with atheists end up with them becoming emotional rather than staying rational. Maybe it's coincidence, but we should look into it anyway to see if there is a pattern. Because it has a remarkable parallel with the emotions that pop up in debates about faith or between denominations. While atheism is said and supposed to not be a religion, it should be emotions free, shouldnt it?
2) Related to the original topic of the OP. It is in a woman's womb that life grows... probably that place offers the best conditions for human cells to grow and to become a person...for that fact alone, the question why female atheists seems to be scarce is relevant. Those who carry life might have some more clues about the nature of life, also in a spiritual way. Isn't it weird that we don't study this breeding ground of human life more profoundly, not only in biological sense but also in the other -in all its- dimensions of being? Every time I see a man being born out of a woman, I realize that a man can only really find the answers about life through a woman. Just my modest opinion.

Wouldn't it be just grand to have a conversation with you over drinks or coffee or lunch, whichever.

Tufanja:


2) Related to the original topic of the OP. It is in a woman's womb that life grows... probably that place offers the best conditions for human cells to grow and to become a person...for that fact alone, the question why female atheists seems to be scarce is relevant. Those who carry life might have some more clues about the nature of life, also in a spiritual way. Isn't it weird that we don't study this breeding ground of human life more profoundly, not only in biological sense but also in the other -in all its- dimensions of being? Every time I see a man being born out of a woman, I realize that a man can only really find the answers about life through a woman. Just my modest opinion.

Personally, I believe spirituality and fate are a product of our intelligence and curious mind, its our way of trying to make sense of what we cant understand. It doesn't necessarily mean its real, a chimpanzee is not spiritual neither does a dolphin which is the highest intelligent animal on earth second only to humans, believes in fate , its just a human brain thing.

donnffd:

Personally, I believe spirituality and fate are a product of our intelligence and curious mind, its our way of trying to make sense of what we cant understand. It doesn't necessarily mean its real, a chimpanzee is not spiritual neither does a dolphin which is the highest intelligent animal on earth second only to humans, believes in fate , its just a human brain thing.

What is interesting is that the standard and models for intelligence are decided upon by humans, doesn't that already reek of bias? A lot of animals are able to achieve features humans are incapable of, say for instance the echolocation bats and dolphins posses. Another hint of bias is that intelligence of other animals is often determined by its ability to follow instructions meted out by humans, say like a Chimps ability to rearrange and identify certain shapes and colors.

I don't think we humans are as smart as we like to think, we are really just an egotistical bunch, which is why you have the majority of the populace believing that the universe was created solely for our existence and that the creator did so to have a personal relationship with us, other animals know better than that, and since they know so, can we really say we are smarter than they are?

Wow. Astute post.

Tufanja:
@ johnydon22

Yes boss, the party went a bit out of hand. You're right in that.

1) Maybe you can help to answer the question what role emotions play in atheism (where do emotions come from in the first place?) and why a lot of debates with atheists end up with them becoming emotional rather than staying rational. Maybe it's coincidence, but we should look into it anyway to see if there is a pattern. Because it has a remarkable parallel with the emotions that pop up in debates about faith or between denominations. While atheism is said and supposed to not be a religion, it should be emotions free, shouldnt it?

2) Related to the original topic of the OP. It is in a woman's womb that life grows... probably that place offers the best conditions for human cells to grow and to become a person...for that fact alone, the question why female atheists seems to be scarce is relevant. Those who carry life might have some more clues about the nature of life, also in a spiritual way. Isn't it weird that we don't study this breeding ground of human life more profoundly, not only in biological sense but also in the other -in all its- dimensions of being? Every time I see a man being born out of a woman, I realize that a man can only really find the answers about life through a woman. Just my modest opinion.

Tufanja:
@ johnydon22

Yes boss, the party went a bit out of hand. You're right in that.

Ok

1) Maybe you can help to answer the question what role emotions play in atheism (where do emotions come from in the first place?) and why a lot of debates with atheists end up with them becoming emotional rather than staying rational. Maybe it's coincidence, but we should look into it anyway to see if there is a pattern. Because it has a remarkable parallel with the emotions that pop up in debates about faith or between denominations. While atheism is said and supposed to not be a religion, it should be emotions free, shouldnt it?

[b]

Emotion is interwoven in the very fabrics of human consciousness and is found in every aspect of human interactions.

While faith deals with emotional stoic conviction we should not also limit emotions to only that confine.

Opinions most time carry a huge emotional tilt than Faith itself.

So emotions are engraved in every area of human participation and interaction.

Atheism being just a position of disbelief in personal Gods has nothing to do with the emotional tilts of atheist.

their emotions stems from their opinions and distinct ideology of what each individual thinks should be or is.

quantifying the emotions of an individual into the position of unbelief is a wrong quantification and i disagree.

Emotions found in most theistic and atheistic arguments abound stems from the drastic difference and conflict in world view and opinion and in many cases an untold resentment towards the negating opinion.

So since the emotions of distinct individuals who leans towards atheism in the face of conflicting ideas stems from the inherent need to be heard and let out an opinion it should not however be infused into the position of Atheism.

This would be a wrong generalization. . . . [/b]

2) Related to the original topic of the OP. It is in a woman's womb that life grows... probably that place offers the best conditions for human cells to grow and to become a person...for that fact alone, the question why female atheists seems to be scarce is relevant. Those who carry life might have some more clues about the nature of life, also in a spiritual way. Isn't it weird that we don't study this breeding ground of human life more profoundly, not only in biological sense but also in the other -in all its- dimensions of being? Every time I see a man being born out of a woman, I realize that a man can only really find the answers about life through a woman. Just my modest opinion.

A noble sentiment this is but putting in my own opinion i think that the very core of nature lies within nature.

The growth of life starts with a combination of equal value of interaction resulting from both a man and a woman.

and so to get a stable and equal knowledge of what we want it shouldn't be limited to only one party.

The tower leans towards the two beings in order to deduct solidly a stable and equal approximation of truth..

Since life (**Human life** because we shouldn't limit what is to just us) starts with an equal donation of value from both man and woman, we can only hope to understand through the premise you proposed by the study of both in order to establish an equal truth of stable value..

For the Op, i would say it is an effect of societal value, its psychological tilt that is as a result of the society in question...

@thisisjboy

May-be ;-)

thisisjboy:


What is interesting is that the standard and models for intelligence are decided upon by humans, doesn't that already reek of bias? A lot of animals are able to achieve features humans are incapable of, say for instance the echolocation bats and dolphins posses. Another hint of bias is that intelligence of other animals is often determined by its ability to follow instructions meted out by humans, say like a Chimps ability to rearrange and identify certain shapes and colors.

I don't think we humans are as smart as we like to think, we are really just an egotistical bunch, which is why you have the majority of the populace believing that the universe was created solely for our existence and that the creator did so to have a personal relationship with us, other animals know better than that, and since they know so, can we really say we are smarter than they are?

[b]

This i totally agree with, Humans judge intelligence from their own perspective of what they feel intelligence should be.

This i asserted on a thread in the science section on the outstanding abilities hoarded by numerous animals that is only a subject of our own fantasies and imaginations.

In our own greed, selfishness and unwarranted arrogance we have prized our self higher and more deserving than every other life forms on earth.

Why should intelligence be limited to what we say it is; this is ego speaking here.

we judge a Chimp based on our own idea of what intellect should be, why not let a chimp put us through similar test based on it's own idea of intellect we might probably fail most of it.

Termites built cities long before homo sapiens became social beings affirming that these tiny unimportant life forms we probably may look down on have established societal norm and mutual pleasing interactions long before we dreamt of it, but yaaaaay we think ourselves progenitors of morality and some even think deities gave it sorely to humans. . .

Humans are very feeble and arrogant beings because they are blind to what those they deem below them can teach them, we are blind to what we may not know because we think we are more knowing than these other life forms we share this planet with.

The dogs out there and horses are not performing rituals to please the creator of the universe, but No we think in our stupendous ego and arrogance that somehow everything was created for us including other neighbours we share this planet with.

In this delusion and moron_ic arrogance we have prized ourselves worth getting another life, we have placed ourselves on a level that we deserve infinite life of eternal bliss but No other life forms don't deserve that, No they don't because they are not humans.

how could they when they are practically worthless and made for our dominion to with what ever we please.

This grand delusion have been etched sadly into the fabrics of human thinking and have blurred our perception of what is
[/b]

I agree with the first paragraph of @thisisjboy. On his second paragraph and the contributions of others like johnydon22 I will come back...got a job to attend to, don't want the boss to pay for my time on NL :-)

Thanks for sharing and will be continued, have a nice day!

thisisjboy:


What is interesting is that the standard and models for intelligence are decided upon by humans, doesn't that already reek of bias? A lot of animals are able to achieve features humans are incapable of, say for instance the echolocation bats and dolphins posses. Another hint of bias is that intelligence of other animals is often determined by its ability to follow instructions meted out by humans, say like a Chimps ability to rearrange and identify certain shapes and colors.

I don't think we humans are as smart as we like to think, we are really just an egotistical bunch, which is why you have the majority of the populace believing that the universe was created solely for our existence and that the creator did so to have a personal relationship with us, other animals know better than that, and since they know so, can we really say we are smarter than they are?

I'm always amazed at how some people think there is a god that loves everyone but looks out for them especially when there are 7 billion others globally, on top of the various other animals that share this planet.

johnydon22:
[b]

This i totally agree with, Humans judge intelligence from their own perspective of what they feel intelligence should be.

This i asserted on a thread in the science section on the outstanding abilities hoarded by numerous animals that is only a subject of our own fantasies and imaginations.

In our own greed, selfishness and unwarranted arrogance we have prized our self higher and more deserving than every other life forms on earth.

Why should intelligence be limited to what we say it is; this is ego speaking here.

we judge a Chimp based on our own idea of what intellect should be, why not let a chimp put us through similar test based on it's own idea of intellect we might probably fail most of it.

Termites built cities long before homo sapiens became social beings affirming that these tiny unimportant life forms we probably may look down on have established societal norm and mutual pleasing interactions long before we dreamt of it, but yaaaaay we think ourselves progenitors of morality and some even think deities gave it sorely to humans. . .

Humans are very feeble and arrogant beings because they are blind to what those they deem below them can teach them, we are blind to what we may not know because we think we are more knowing than these other life forms we share this planet with.

The dogs out there and horses are not performing rituals to please the creator of the universe, but No we think in our stupendous ego and arrogance that somehow everything was created for us including other neighbours we share this planet with.

In this delusion and moron_ic arrogance we have prized ourselves worth getting another life, we have placed ourselves on a level that we deserve infinite life of eternal bliss but No other life forms don't deserve that, No they don't because they are not humans.

how could they when they are practically worthless and made for our dominion to with what ever we please.

This grand delusion have been etched sadly into the fabrics of human thinking and have blurred our perception of what is
[/b]

I agree with you totally, but i would still give humans the credit, why?, because as you may know, we have the highest Encephalization quotient among all the species that have ever walked this planet so far as we can tell,(Encephalization quotient is the ratio of Brain size to Body mass), and that has helped us in our evolution because we now structure our environs to fit us thereby reducing the pressure of natural selection, but we are nevertheless arrogant about it, like a spoilt child whose father is very rich and believes he/she owns the world. As for an imaginary creator, i still hold the stance that is an effect of the evolution of some african apes with a thinking brain that evolved in hostility and struggle.

Our ability to feel precedes our ability to think. The limbic system (feeling part of the brain) is fully development when we are born. Contrary to the parts responsible for sensory input and the thinking part (prefrontal cortex), they are only developed during infancy. Emotions in religious debates pop in when discussing the vacuum of knowledge or the field of doubt (topics that lack sufficient evidence). Religious people will say “I can feel there is something more…I can’t explain…I can feel a relationship with a personal God…like some people can feel love without us having proves for it”. Atheists probably will feel the opposite (without evidence either)…and will think/feel (a mix of both) (alike @thisisjboy) “we are not that smart after all to understand all, we are an egotistical bunch…”

Why do we switch from letting the thinking system of our brain dominate to letting the feeling (emotional part) rule? Probably when our thinking part fails it triggers us to go back to our most primary way of responding. I don’t think that, like @johnydon22 said, “(atheists’) emotions stem from their opinions and distinct ideology”. I think that the emotions are rather a result of the limitations of their own capacity to find the missing pieces of the puzzle to explain life, than that they stem from opinions/ideology. By the way, using the terminology “opinions/ideology” already betrays that we are not talking about scientific/proves facts but about a mix of objective and subjective elements. Which makes it as much a sort of religious point of view…

I think that atheists disagree with the emotional response religious people give to the limitations of the human brain. But, when @johnydon22 said “(the atheist emotions come from) the inherent need to be heard and let out an opinion (just like religious people)”… it gives me sort of the suspicious that atheists have a deep hidden desire for a personal relationship… But with who? God is death so he can’t be there. Humans are “egoistic, selfish, unwarranted arrogant”… so I don’t think humans are an option either. And out of their own human nature we eat other animals and define them as inferior to us so this also excludes them as option to have a personal relationship with. It puts the limbic system of feeling and emotions in overdrive…it gives the primary response that new-born’s easily give…fight/flight/freeze survival response….it is their adult reaction to the inherent loneliness of their existence and to the ultimate consequences of their opinions.

As long as we don’t master the secrets of life, we will stay newborns…and some of us will love to hear a (religious) lullaby until we have grown up…others decide to become nihilistic, cynic, angry, annoying (whatever primary emotion) etc… others fight the inner battle on their own and try to make something out of their life without even understanding or feeling why and try to build personal relationships with humans (and they keep getting disappointed time after time by human limitations to really be in a personal relationship with one another in a way that one feels deeply understood, known and loved in all aspects of existence…but they will keep trying until they become cynic as well…because why should they try at all…what meaning has it…everything is temporary). Maybe that also answers my earlier observation in this threat…that the tone, style etc of debates with some atheists makes women run away… we put our live and hearts at risk to give birth to new life…why would we keep doing that, after all, when you tell us life is not more than reproduction and love is just an emotion instead of a deep personal relationship that is worth it to live for?