₦airaland Forum

What were they expecting?

That she would give birth to a mad baby?

moca:
Upiantu!
Page 12!
Somebody should come and read for me.

It's too long na

Nothing much.
Same old back and forth with accusations and counter accusations, invocation of curses and so on.
Wasted the last 2hrs catching up, be happy you don't have to do the same.
Thank me later.
Good morning all.

feeling sleepy. goodnight.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=193379



ACCORDING TO FINDINGS recently released by the Oregon Social Learning Center, women are routinely violent towards men and may be fueling the rise in domestic abuse. This study claims that young women are more likely than young men to initiate physical aggression with their partner. Young women are at a higher risk for domestic violence when they’re physically aggressive towards their partner; and young men reduce aggression when they are with less aggressive women.

Essentially, when a man is with an aggressive woman, he has a higher tendency to behave aggressively. CAse in point the Mcdokwe incident.

babyosisi:
Give me a link

the link is there.

coogar:
is babyosisi disputing the fact above?

freecocoa:
I am not disputing any of those facts, I'm only saying, it goes both ways.

Do you also know that, some of these women who end up getting pummeled by men, hit the man first?

Do you know that some of them lock the men's shirt? And insist on being killed than letting him walk away from the situation?

[size=14pt]Why are you only talking about men beating women, when above 80% of the time, it is the women that hit first[/size] and expect the man not to hit back because they are supposedly the "weaker" sex?

babyosisi:
Can you share your statistics and the source
I started off this thread with a survey that says that 2/3rd of women in subsaharan Africa have been physically abused by their significant other
Where is your source?
Your own thoughts?

just helping out.

Michelle Carney a,⁎, Fred Buttell b
, Don Dutton c
a School of Social Work, Tucker Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA b Tulane University, USA c University of British Columbia, Canada
Received 25 May 2006; accepted 25 May 2006
Available online 12 July 2006

Among the debates in the field of domestic violence, none is more acrimonious than the debate around female
initiated violence — a debate that has been troubling for feminists since the first U.S. [size=15pt]National Family Violence Survey
of 1975 found women to be as violent as men. Because this finding contradicts feminist theory, it has been suppressed,
unreported, reinterpreted, or denied.[/size] Attempts to explain away or diminish female initiated violence in intimate
Aggression and Violent Behavior 12 (2007) 108–115
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mmcarney@uga.edu (M. Carney).
1359-1789/$ - see front matter © 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2006.05.002


A conclusion borne out by Archer's (2000, 2002) meta-analysis
of 82 couple-conflict studies which found that [size=14pt]women were more likely to use physical aggression than men and to
resort to violence more often than men.[/size]


http://lab.drdondutton.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Carney-M.M.-Buttell-F.-Dutton-D.G.-2007-Women-who-perpetrate-intimate-violence.pdf

Its a very long article but makes a good read.

Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence
Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD, and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD


Objectives. We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury.

Methods. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18761 heterosexual relationships.

Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. [size=18pt]In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.[/size] Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2., but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7). Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3; 95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

https://www.google.com.ng/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fpmc%2Farticles%2FPMC1854883%2F&ei=qHAMVYbFMYvbavXmgJAF&usg=AFQjCNGm0wew68B_xjqhXu2bcmtWU1oLZQ&bvm=bv.88528373,d.d2s

@highlighted, what this essentially means is that in 70% of the cases, when the man did not reciprocate the abuse, the women would begin to physically abuse the man.

so freecocoa wasn't far from the truth.

malvisguy212:
1.is a forestshadowing event, God is trying to tell us how the world will end isaiah 46 say God declared the end from the beginning,why did God throw this in? Read here https://www.nairaland.com/1853536/end-days-end-harvest
2.God want to have a personal relationship with us, bible say he know our desire even before we ask ,God want us to COME to him and ask,how do you make a choice in worship God? By prayer.
3. adam and eve know what is right and wrong the day God command them not to eat from the tree, the reply of eve indicate it,pay close attention to eve reply to the serpent;
He said to the woman, “Did God actually
say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the
garden’?” And the woman said to the
serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the
trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You
shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is
in the midst of the garden, neither shall
you touch it, lest you DIE.’” But the
serpent said to the woman, “You will not
surely die. For God knows that when you
eat of it your eyes will be opened, and
you will be like God, knowing good and
evil.” (Genesis 3:1-5 ESV).
Clearly written here, the woman knows if she eat the fruit she will "DIE" if the woman did not no good or evil no need for satan to trick her, am I right? Ok
4.God is the first caused .
5.a supernatural being can performed more than that, but if you are an atheist and you don't believe in the supernatural,I have nothing to proved to you, haven't you encounter juju and all sort of magic before?
6.the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to
provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. Without sin or evil people will not be able to make this choice
7. https://www.nairaland.com/1999485/all-religions-lead-god-one
8.Isaac
9.ISLAM contradicts the teaching of Jesus christ
10.muhammed got nothing to do with Christianity.

Wonderful answers sir!

However I don't agree with you on item 3. I think the whole aim of the forbidden fruit was 'obedience'. The test was for Adam and Eve, both of whom had free will to either obey God or disobey him. It was a simple enough test but Eve failed it and took Adam down with her.

striktlymi:
My response was not meant to "satisfy" you. I only demonstrated how silly most of the questions are because of the nature of freewill. I chose to respond to your questions without giving two hoots whether you are satisfied or not...going to ask someone why I chose to do that when I can decide to ignore your thread totally is a bit silly to me.

If I have the freedom to choose what I want, why can't God decide to choose whatever way he wants to go about creation? I am not sure you see the silliness in some of the questions.

1000likes for you sir!

They say God is all powerful yet they want him to do things 'in a particular way'. He can do it anyway he wants!

Hiswordxray:
Does your mother love you?
Does she remember to punish you when you do something wrong?
Does that mean she doesn't love you?

Nice.

.

Adam was not the first man God created.

Gen 1:26 tells of the creation of the world in six days, man and woman were created on the sixth day. And God set them over the whole surface of the earth telling them to be fruitful and multiply. Woman was already in God's world plan. She wasn't an afterthought.
And on the seventh day God rested.


Gen 2: 4-6 talks of the genealogy of creation. A recast on how the earth was created. It was a common practice in the Bible if you see Exodus, Leviticus etc and how people's genealogy were traced down.

Gen 2:7-25 talks about the creation of a man called Adam. And God took Adam and put him in a garden that he planted. But Adam was lonely, so God created the birds and animals and brought them to him and he named them all. But man was still lonely so God caused him to fall into a deep sleep during which he created a woman.
And man was finally not lonely.


And then the serpent came.

Chai! See love booming on this thread! And am killing myself in religion section!
I don shift base o jare!

DProDG:
Poor analogy. No one is running from God. You need to accept his existence in the first place to 'run from him'.

You cannot find God because you don't want to. You couldn't even interprete it right.

Accidental≠deterministic.

So?

.

DProDG:
I hope you were not expecting me to read all that. I mentioned earlier that a scientist's religion is not relevant to his work and you post list of religious scientists? Please tell me how religion helped them or at least which of them was against the inquiry into the origin of the universe and life on earth.

read it and you'll find out. I can't do everything for you na.

I'll leave you with this:

The atheist can't find God for the same reason that a thief can't find a policeman.
Author Unknown

and this:

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
C.S. Lewis



good night sir.

DProDG:
When you've got followers of a religion pushing their faith on you and retarding progress, both scientific and economic, you'll understand

Oh? Retarding progress you say?

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.

Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity."

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.

Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.

Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the SoulPascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts", was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."


Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."

Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to[b] "Boyle's Law" for gases[/b], and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day, and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.

Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.

Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.

William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).

Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"

Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."







all these are great men who led the march in the progress of your almighty science today. They all believed in GOD. Pray tell, how does christianity reta.rrd progress again?


i'm getting sleepy and av been at this all day. it has been a good discussion. good nigh.

johnydon22:
wikipedia encyclopedia biased? because they called myth what it is, myth...lmao
hahahahahahahaha creating light (day and night) and plant before The sun.. chisoooooos How does this even resemble anything similar to evolution..

Beside evolution is referred to as origin of species not the world..

sigh.
I was talking about plant and animal life, SEE MY ORIGINAL POST

5minsmadness:

how does this answer how such early people could figure out the whole evolution process? The creation story follows evolution story, you can just substitute 'days' for 'millions of years' in the way plant and animal life appeared and it would follow uncannily. how is that possible if it is just a story?

I meant as in plant life, followed by sea life, followed by land life.

You are beginning to argue semantics. it means either you are tired or are nitpicking. It also means our discussion will probably end soon. Its been fun, anyway

DProDG:
I didn't know, so I asked...


Replacing one term with another doesn't change anything. Adaptation is different from evolution. For starters, it plays no role on the genetic level, hence, isn't hereditary. What you call adaptation IS evolution.

tomato
Tomaeto.

It still doesnt answer my question. WHY HASN'T HUMANITY EVOLVED FURTHER?

dalaman:
Which facts? Which date did Peter die and who killed him? Provide 3 independent sources from antiquity that supports this claim. There is history, myths and legend, the story of Jesus disciples dying for their faiths is mythology and legends.

LOL!

Who are you to demand in what way I should present how St peter died? If you are looking for someone to vent your frustrations look elsewhere!

johnydon22:
i think i need not argue over it http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

abraham was from the land of UR in mesopotamia... am still wondering how you want to place the jewish civilization and the mesopotamian civilization in the same timeline..

apart from the fact that your link starts with calling the genesis story a myth and hence is biased, how does this answer how such early people could figure out the whole evolution process? The creation story follows evolution story, you can just substitute 'days' for 'millions of years' in the way plant and animal life appeared and it would follow uncannily. how is that possible if it is just a story?

dont put words in my mouth. i didnt place jewish and mesopotamian timelines together.

DProDG:
Oh, so you now you understand why we don't worry about Zeus?

Oh, so you worry about GOD almighty? why?


@francistony, come up here a moment. Start reading from page 10. You may learn something new

DProDG:
Idk, never heard of it.

then why did you ask?

We're both aware of the number of inherited traits required to make significant differences. However there are subtle differences between various populations eg Tibetan evolution.

You say evolution, I say adaptation. It still doesn't answer my question.

Reset assign re-calibrated?

ok.

dalaman:
Died horrible deaths according to stories written by others many, many years after they died in other to encourage the faiths of others right? Died horrible deaths indeed.

oh, now they are stories right. what is history if not a long long story of mankind?
i am talking of facts sir.

DProDG:
Ever heard of the Cathars? They were tortured my catholics for the same reason, 1500yrs later.

no they weren't, at least not the way you try to paint it. Know your historysir.
the cathars believed that the god of the old testament was satan while the god of the new testament was god almighty. they had become this way because they had been isolated from the general church for a long time. the pope tried to correct this error by sending missionaries to them but they killed one of them. this led to an act of war ( yes, the catholic church had an army that time, it was the way of the world then) and the cathars were killed. Putting it simplistically according to history, "they started it".

Jonestown? Heaven's gate? Both groups amounting to almost 1000 members committed suicide because well...God

not the same thing sir. these people were not being persecuted directly for their faith. they are classical cases of brainwashing and hence they took their own lives.

I'm unaware of historical documents or even bible verses accounting the torture of all the disciples.

Google it.
i might open a thread about it later. it makes for an interesting, if not bizarre read.

johnydon22:
atheism doesnt mean scientism..

oh, so you are abandoning the science and evolution ship now? ok

None

that right there sir is the crux of your problem or lack of belief. a lot of people have had supernatural things happen to them(i'm not talking about nigerian pastors and their 'miracles', that is a story for another day) , things that science can in no wa explain, so NOTHING you tell them will stop them from believing in GOD almighty. they've got first hand experience of His power.

You do know the creation story in your bible copied from the mesopotamian creation story..
Now read the creation story in genesis chapter one (mesopotamian creation myth tho) and read the creation story in genesis chapter 2 and tell me how they follow evolutionary process..

there you go again, starting something you cannot finish
can you tell me exactly how the bible account copies from the mesoptamian account? keeping in view that both accounts date back to the same time period how are we sure it wasn't the mesopotamian account that was copied from the bible? Are you aware most of the interpretations of the mesopotamian tablet are still undergoing scruntiny? why you dey do like this sef?

on the off chance that they are copies, does that reduce the authenticity of the bible?

i have explained the time-gap between genesis 1 and 2 on another thread. it shows two creation accounts, one of the whole world and the other of the garden of eden and its environs. You can search for books on these if you are interested.

DProDG:
-So you're saying that, the fact that not everybody believes in God, is proof of his/her/its existence? Ok...

-Atheism isn't 'anti-all-gods'(that would be Kratos). It's simply disbelieve which I'm sure you know already. Perhaps if you guys were quoting scriptures of Zeus, erecting monuments and insisting we trade science for Greek mythology, we'll talk more about him.

atheism is the lack of belief in gods, as far as i know kratos is the god of strength, unless you are referring to that guy in god-of-war.

but i'm not quoting scriptures of zeus because GOD almighty is mightier than him. simples.

johnydon22:
Apparently am now a scientist not just an atheist

ah, but you were the one thinking you could use your 'advanced scientific knowledge' to bamboozle me about the evolution of the naked ape

guy why did you leave the catholic church jo?

DProDG:
What is 'godism'?

It means when one is god. i hope i am correct?

We are still evolving...

kindly prove it.

What holes? Wrong how? Carbon dating is wrong too?

yes it is, but they have worked on it. the carbon-dating clock was recently reset. read it up.

NB science has no stance on God. Personal beliefs of individual scientists have nothing to do with science.

I agree. However atheism has a stance on god. it fervently and almost violently believes that god does not exist. I know scientists who despite their high advancement in the field still believe in a god that created everything so i get where you are coming from. but this thread is about atheists.

johnydon22:
[s]and so he drops it... I think you should have a conversation with worshippers of zeus and ask them who god almighty is..

evidently you think ur god is the almighty just like them[/s].

This made no sense whatsoever.
worshipers of zeus dont call him "god almighty".
Admit you just learned something new

johnydon22:
exactly the same way muslims prefers blowing themselves up for allah.. ironically u must see them as gullible and delusional beings ..

Yes I do.
i believe religion is a powerful force, enough to brainwash a person into doing extremely foolish things. BUt the jihadist blowing himself up happens in moments. usually he has undergone series of extreme brain-washing and sometimes i hear they are even threatened with the death of their families if they don't go ahead with it. Also it takes just a moment to press the trigger button and they see themselves in 'heaven' with their 72 virgins.

Christ's apostles and disciples enjoyed no such luxury as an instantaneous death. they were crucified upside down, ensuring blood rushed to their brains to keep them alive for as long as possible to endure the pain. some were skewered, some were boiled alive, others were thrown to lions and allowed to run around as they anticipated being torn to shreds. the distinct difference between jihadists and the early Christians is that they were not sacrificing themselves to kill others. there was no revenge factor involved, these men were being motivated by pure love and what they hoped to prove to people by their exemplary deaths. These men simply refused to deny their faith. what did they see that made them so sure of themselves?


in other news, I heard you just turned atheist/humanist not up to a year or so ago