logicboy: Are atheists winning on nairaland?

I see topics on NL where the OP is begging his fellow christians/mulsims not to engage in arguments/debates.

I see atheists getting heavily involved in religious threads on NL.

I see some christians getting intellectually punished by atheists on NL.


So what do you think? (As an atheist, I will of course side with atheists)

yes you are winning from the rear

musKeeto: If you don't know what BRICS is, why not google it... according to you

And can you post where I said Israel isn't western...

I think you're a young man who has just found freedom outside the walls of religion. Enjoy it while it lasts. I doubt you'd still be posting this frequently next week...

First off, I'm a business major. BRICS is just a list of emerging economies- Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa. It is not an organisation or a trade agreement.

As for your claim that Isral is not western, what did you mean by this;

buzugee: yes you are winning from the rear

What's wrong with you Buzugee? You never support me!!!!! not fair!!


[img]http://1.bp..com/_cD6A1FRcnXY/SX0F8FN5pKI/AAAAAAAAAlg/y0-V5Zox258/s400/its+not+fair.jpg[/img]

For your info, I live in India, and BRICS had a meetin in DELHI last month. They're more than a list of developing countries, they're an organization. It was first BRIC, before South Africa joined them, to make it BRICS..

Since you love quoting from wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

BRICS is an international political organisation of leading emerging economies, arising out of the inclusion of South Africa into the BRIC group in 2010. As of 2012, its five members are Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.[2]

logicboy:


What's wrong with you Buzugee? You never support me!!!!! not fair!!


[img]http://1.bp..com/_cD6A1FRcnXY/SX0F8FN5pKI/AAAAAAAAAlg/y0-V5Zox258/s400/its+not+fair.jpg[/img]

...

musKeeto: For your info, I live in India, and BRICS had a meetin in DELHI last month. They're more than a list of developing countries, they're an organization. It was first BRIC, before South Africa joined them, to make it BRICS..

Since you love quoting from wikipedia..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS

Where is the BRICS headquarters?

OPEC has heardquarters and a president.

Lol.. now it's about headquarters, not if they're an organization.. You win, man, you win...

Google is your friend. It's your choice to be ignorant.

Religionists run away from me.
Their biggest fear is that i might actually convince them.
it is extremely hard to accept that you have been lied to and brainwashed all your life by the poeple you trust the most. that everything you believed in were false.
if a theist spends enough time with me, he'll at least seriously doubt his/her faith.

Logic Mind: Religionists run away from me.
Their biggest fear is that i might actually convince them.
it is extremely hard to accept that you have been lied to and brainwashed all your life by the poeple you trust the most. that everything you believed in were false.
if a theist spends enough time with me, he'll at least seriously doubt his/her faith.

LOL...tickle yourself. By the way, how are you doing?

musKeeto: Lol.. now it's about headquarters, not if they're an organization.. You win, man, you win...

They are not an organisation. What organisation doesnt have headquarters or a president?



I'm too much

logicboy:

They are not an organisation. What organisation doesnt have headquarters or a president?



I'm too much

It's in its infancy so the details are probably going to be worked out over the next few years if the countries decide to continue their cooperation. It's probably just going to be another G7, G20 type of organization.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/BRICS-Nations-Inch-Toward-Development-Bank-144890255.html

Martian:

It's in its infancy so the details are probably going to be worked out over the next few years if the countries decide to continue their cooperation. It's probably just going to be another G7, G20 type of organization.

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/BRICS-Nations-Inch-Toward-Development-Bank-144890255.html

Yep, your news link doesnt refer to them as an organisation. They might become one in the future

rastamouse:

LOL...tickle yourself. By the way, how are you doing?

Ah! you're back.
i thought my otapipia wiped away your rodent family
anyway good to see you back with good behaviour
where's that debate you promised?
chickening out?

Logic Mind:

Ah! you're back.
i thought my otapipia wiped away your rodent family
anyway good to see you back with good behaviour
where's that debate you promised?
chickening out?

The debate will come on but I have been busy on meeting my work deadline. I will be fried if I fail to. So just relax for the showdown later

Atheist winning or atheist whining? I think the latter is more in order, there are many threads atheist have been shown to be just that atheist, take for instance the thread started on what contribution atheism has made, all the atheist did was to whine . . . and when their whining was no longer helpful they concluded that it was impossible for atheism to have made any contribution to mankind! and to conclude people like logicmind always make the case of the theist easier by showing that atheism is fundamentally rooted in illogical behavior, something logicmind tend to show whenever he decides to befuddle logic!

vedaxcool: Atheist winning or atheist whining? I think the latter is more in order, there are many threads atheist have been shown to be just that atheist, take for instance the thread started on what contribution atheism has made, all the atheist did was to whine . . . and when their whining was no longer helpful they concluded that it was impossible for atheism to have made any contribution to mankind! and to conclude people like logicmind always make the case of the theist easier by showing that atheism is fundamentally rooted in illogical behavior, something logicmind tend to show whenever he decides to befuddle logic!

You lie. But thanks for ur opinion

^^^^

You whine again instead of winning

logicboy:

You lie. But thanks for ur opinion

You think so?

rastamouse:

You think so?

Of course.

vedaxcool: Atheist winning or atheist whining? I think the latter is more in order, there are many threads atheist have been shown to be just that atheist, take for instance the thread started on what contribution atheism has made, all the atheist did was to whine . . . and when their whining was no longer helpful they concluded that it was impossible for atheism to have made any contribution to mankind! and to conclude people like logicmind always make the case of the theist easier by showing that atheism is fundamentally rooted in illogical behavior, something logicmind tend to show whenever he decides to befuddle logic!

i agree with the bolded.
i, too, often question my illogical behaviour.
however, my mind is anything except illogical.

Atheism is the product of a narrow world-view in which individuals seek escape from higher responsibilities by denying the existence of anything which cannot be "seen on the TV". It is also laughable when one reads certain wild claims that suggest there are no scientists other than those with atheistic background. Christians do not seek to win any debate; they merely try to broaden humankind's scope of understanding beyond the narrow world of physical things into an unseen realm wherein lies the FOUNDATION of all that we see around us. What harm is there to be found in such expansion of our field of knowledge and experiences? Anyway, when humanity is finally able to dismantle those artificial boundaries that have denied it uninterrupted view of what is necessary for its collective happiness on earth then all these argument about who is winning or losing shall find no meaning in such discussions.

Deep Sight:
. . . .
Atheism does not do this. It rather makes many religionists retreat further and deeper into their faith. The fundamental premise of atheism is a notion that mosts theists will never take seriously, and quite right so.

Don't ignore those who discard religion due to the criticisms. Check this page out.

Deep Sight:
What rather acheives the above is not atheism, but healthy, open minded criticism which is definitely not militantly or evangelically atheist.

. . . .

What sort of criticism do you think religious people would accept as not being militant or evangelically atheist? Also note that when you say this, you're creating a double standard of what it means to be militant and to be evangelical. e.g for militant, when a religious person bombs an abortion clinic or goes on a killing spree, they're militant but when atheists are simply having a frank discussion, they're militant.
When a religious person stands by the roadside shouting bible passages or accosts you on the street, they're evangelical but when you approach atheists having a discussion or when atheists think that your position is poorly supported and are pointing this out, they're evangelical.
Seriously, people who agree with the religious shouldn't employ such terrible double standards.

Deep Sight:
I say with firm certitude to you sir: that there is not one single atheistic argument that rhymes with common sense or accords with science.

How about not believing in a God because the religious texts are faulty?

thehomer:

How about not believing in a God because the religious texts are faulty?

Predicating belief or unbelief in a creator on ancient religious texts is beyond lazy.

Deep Sight:

Predicating belief or unbelief in a creator on ancient religious texts is beyond lazy.

Actually, believing in the absence of or against evidence is lazy and believing in an irrelevant God is worse than lazy.

^ ^ ^ Not tenable. You are ceasing to be rational. My statement was predicated in this statement by you:

"How about not believeing in a God because the Religious Texts are faulty?"

You made that in response to my averrment that there is no scientific basis for atheism.

I state that that is a lazy reason to advance because the question of the causation of this reality - which is what the God-question is about, certainly exceeds religion: it is not limited to religion. It has been the inquiry of philosophy and cosmology for centuries. As such, merely rejecting the issues on account of faulty "religious" texts is lazy: it is not expansive enough.

In the mind of the truly rational man, the God question needn't have anything to do with religion: much less 'faulty' religious texts.

Deep Sight: ^ ^ ^ Not tenable. You are ceasing to be rational. My statement was predicated in this statement by you:

"How about not believeing in a God because the Religious Texts are faulty?"

You made that in response to my averrment that there is no scientific basis for atheism.

I state that that is a lazy reason to advance because the question of the causation of this reality - which is what the God-question is about, certainly exceeds religion: it is not limited to religion. It has been the inquiry of philosophy and cosmology for centuries. As such, merely rejecting the issues on account of faulty "religious" texts is lazy: it is not expansive enough.

Maybe you need to come to the realization that different people have different ideas of God. Claiming that yours is automatically superior because it doesn't have these books is simply ignoring the reality of the world you're living in. And I don't think serious people ignore that basic fact.

Deep Sight:
In the mind of the truly rational man, the God question needn't have anything to do with religion: much less 'faulty' religious texts.

Tell that to the child witches being burned on the account of the God described in those "faulty religious texts".

Deep Sight:
Might I add, all succeeding theories about the generation of first life in a pre-biotic soup, have yet to be proven.

What do you think about Miller's experiment ?

Miller/Urey Experiment

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Not that such a replication would disprove the existence of God, because the path from unicellular organism to human being is a path that is treacherous for the scientist.

Is it your view that man came to be; whole ab initio?

@OP

It is no that atheist are winning. Logic and Science which Atheists use to support their argument, does not explain things outside Matter. Therefore, the argument goes on and on.

dexmond: @OP

It is no that atheist are winning. Logic and Science which Atheists use to support their argument, does not explain things outside Matter. Therefore, the argument goes on and on.

what things?

@ Logic mind
Like Out-of-body experiences, Automatic Writing, Telepathy, Trance etc. The fact that you have never experienced them does necessary mean that they dont exist.

jayriginal:
What do you think about Miller's experiment ?

Dear, it says nothing about the origin of life. Like other experiments, it merely refers to the very natural, very normal and very understandable composition of inanimate components such as acids. Life on earth obviously is made of various elements of matter. Water is predominant everywhere: so just take this analogy: it is like a scientist showing how water is formed and then concluding that he has shown the creation of first life. Simples.

Is it your view that man came to be; whole ab initio?

No: I believe in evolution.

My view however, is that it was a guided and directed process.