RickyJesus:

Because it still is.

Education may be the key but it's the wrong key because the door and padlock has changed!

dontrulee:


Education may be the key but it's the wrong key because the door and padlock has changed!

Statically getting some level of education put you on an advantageous position to succeed,everyother thing has a minimal level of giving you a chance to do better in life don't kid yourself.

THE KING SAYS: To be free of the passions and to be calm is the most excellent way.

By the way this quote is meaningless to majority of people, come back to reality.

DevilsEqual:
That God does not exist
I used to believe this lie until I decided to pick us some books to read
Those books are :
1) Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist

2) On the origin of Time and also "Brief Answers to Big questions" both by Stephen Hawkngs, a world-renowned physicist who wrote extensively on big bang theory

3) On the origin of species by means of Natural selection by Charles Darwin... another Evolutionary biologist


Thats it...I gave up on atheism forever...it takes even greater faith to believe the bull crap origin of life stories propounded by those guys

Your last sentence captures why I can never be an atheist. I may be irreligious I may not believe in any prophet but I can never be an atheist

NASA went to the moon 🌝

RickyJesus:


Statically getting some level of education put you on an advantageous position to succeed,everyother thing has a minimal level of giving you a chance to do better in life don't kid yourself.

THE KING SAYS: To be free of the passions and to be calm is the most excellent way.

By the way this quote is meaningless to majority of people, come back to reality.

Street education/self education/financial education is definitely better than the nonsense traditional/school education definitely. What has your school education gotten you?

Statistically, it's been proven that it's a scam as many people don't even do what they study in school right?

Besides, many of the world wealthiest people are drop outs, the school education system trains you to work for a boss and that's shit!

If that's your own key then good for you, you're still living in the olden era and your days will soon be over.

RickyJesus:


Statically getting some level of education put you on an advantageous position to succeed,everyother thing has a minimal level of giving you a chance to do better in life don't kid yourself.

THE KING SAYS: To be free of the passions and to be calm is the most excellent way.

By the way this quote is meaningless to majority of people, come back to reality.

The quote is meaningless to you because it's above your head.

Develop yourself mentally and perhaps just perhaps you maybe able to catch a glimpse of the quote.
Gracias 🙂

RickyJesus:

You did not read anything, stop dey lie.

If you read the Bible and also apply the same intelligence devoid of sentiment you would have given up theism.

I didnt read anything yet listed out those books from where?
U didnt even come up with a logical defence on those books which i know u have never ever read in your life
Some of u think there arent well-researched theists in the world...

Open your mind bro...

Gadafii:
”women are weaker vessels “
Yet they have crumbled several kingdoms and destroyed kings and reputable men from time immemorial

it's true physically. I think I don't have to prove this to you. All the research and proofs are out there.

But on the inside, they are manipulative, conniving, and devious than men are, hence why they are able to 'topple' kingdoms, kings, and great men!

JessicaRabbit:


I don't agree with the sentiment that "anyone would choose Art over Science", and I don't remember expressing such a confident assertion to you. Just to be clear, I was arguing that all forms of exploration have value, not that science is inferior. If you don't understand some of the things I say, you could always ask for clarification. I also couldn't help but notice that you keep referring to the tone and/or structure of my posts, which I think is completely irrelevant to the points I'm trying to make. Enlightenment is not solely a product of eloquent sentence structure. The use of English is a pointer to your level of education at best. I prefer to write in a way that best communicates my true thoughts, and this happens to be it. So it would be nice if you stopped letting yourself get distracted and just focused on the substance of my arguments alone. What's not helpful is you claiming that my comments are "intimidating", or that I'm in the business of "forcing others" to succumb to a particular worldview. With all due respect, are you here for a dialogue, or do you just want to poison the well, and cast doubts on my credibility? What you're doing here is a form of ad hominem fallacy.

Now, I will commend your dedication to exploring various schools of thought. Delving into Stoicism, Epicureanism, and even Cynicism showcases a commendable intellectual curiosity. However, your statement about "knowing almost everything available" concerning certain philosophers raises a slight eyebrow. While commendable, claiming complete mastery of such complex schools is ambitious (and potentially a touch self-aggrandizing, but we can be charitable and call it a turn of phrase). The fact that you can mention names doesn't refute the points I raised concerning confirmation bias and the limitations of individual interpretations. Detailing your extensive reading list while stating difficulty addressing my points doesn't engage with my actual arguments.

You claimed that after extensive exploration of various disciplines, you found religious explanations, "even with inconsistencies," more convincing than the offerings of science, art, and philosophy. This statement only serves to reinforce the million-dollar question: have you truly approached these fields with an open mind, free from confirmation bias? Have you genuinely considered the possibility that your current belief system might be influencing how you interpret these diverse fields? And I don't know where you got the misleading notion that science lacks criticism. The very foundation of science rests on the pillars of doubt, questioning, and revising existing knowledge! Every scientific theory undergoes rigorous scrutiny, with peers constantly seeking to disprove and refine existing ideas. This self-correcting mechanism is precisely what fuels scientific progress. Art and music, while not offering the same level of testability as science, provide invaluable insights into the human condition. You are vastly underestimating their potential. They evoke emotions, challenge perspectives, and offer unique avenues for exploring the "why" and "how" of our existence. There are many people who make vital life decisions solely based on their emotions. Dismissing art and music as mere expressions devoid of truth is akin to shutting your eyes to a significant part of the human experience.

True wisdom lies in embracing the vastness of knowledge, acknowledging the limitations of our understanding, and approaching every conversation with an open mind and a genuine desire to learn. Assuming you possess all the answers after a self-proclaimed "extensive" exploration is a dangerous path bordering on intellectual arrogance.

Let me reiterate that I'm not trying to force my views on anybody. I'm just trying to encourage a respectful dialogue with due regard for facts, while avoiding emotional arguments and logical fallacies. I understand if you do not wish to continue with the conversation. Obviously you may have other things you want to focus on, and that's fine.

Thats the issue, U always think u know more than is written here
I listed those names to let u know that i have dedicated my time to following these guys at a point and if this convo was actually one on one, I would have told u everything about them that made me to stick to their principles but discard everything they have to say about the origin of life



Again, Philisophical teachings,arising from the thoughts of a random individual isnt to be taken that seriously, those scientific books written by the well-renowned scientists I talked about from my first comment were taking really seriously cause i had even read the counter arguments of other scientists, who were even christains but lacked convincing verifiable argument, an example is the Russell Wallace letters to Charles Darwin, trying to refute the effect of Natural selelction on species with higher faculties (This letter was the same reason why Darwins theory never covered the Evolution of Man) yet I still find Wallace assumptions wrong and sticked to Darwin's proven theory even though it has limitations but it has more substantial points than any other

This is similar to those attacks on Galileo Galilei after his claims that the earth wasnt flat...I am sure u know how the church started persecuting him blindly

That u think i do not even read those other books by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings with an open mind just showed that u think u have been debating with a conc xtian and thats never true




Even scientists were quick to discard some hypothesis from earlier Greek philosophers cause they lack verifiable evidences and thats why Einstein later said that "Galileo was the first true Philosophical scientist cause he not only opined, but he demonstrated it with inventions"



Those are the reasonds why i rate Science over everything, hence my first comment about those great books written by notable scientists

So u think i just went about listing names of philosophers and their books when U havent even suggested i read up on any book, to maybe open my mind the more or to counter all I have been saying

So funny that u think that i, who listed those names havent taken my time to study things deeply and with a open mind but you, that couldnt even mention either a book by a scientist or a philosopher or even an Artist should be the one to tell me on how to explore other aspects

Its more funny, when u think i am not open-minded enough yet read those tons of books, isnt that a waste of my time?

Then u whose pre-existing notion about xtians hasnt made u givr a true counter arguement to all i have been saying but only to tell me to explore other aspects with no true info on either a book, an Artist or why they could have superior argument over science, think you have a more balance arguement on this issue

I'm not your average Theist

DevilsEqual:



I didnt read anything yet listed out those books from where?
U didnt even come up with a logical defence on those books which i know u have never ever read in your life
Some of u think there arent well-researched theists in the world...

Open your mind bro...

Every ardent reader most have come across this books, that doesn't means you have read them.

These are book that have peered review and given global accolades by high ranking research institute, and you aspect to take the opinion of a nobody by like you? If you have a good critic on those books you would have been a world renowned researcher by now.

Let me have a link of your critic of those books.

dontrulee:


The quote is meaningless to you because it's above your head.

Develop yourself mentally and perhaps just perhaps you maybe able to catch a glimpse of the quote.
Gracias 🙂

The fact that you have to quote me twice with different version of geberrish prove I need not take your opinion serious.

obinna58:

Not like I’m doubting though
Your account says Time registered: May 19, 2023

If you’re not billynaire just know that it’s good you’re here to awoken memories

LOL. I'll take that as a compliment, I guess.

DevilsEqual:



Thats the issue, U always think u know more than is written here
I listed those names to let u know that i have dedicated my time to following these guys at a point and if this convo was actually one on one, I would have told u everything about them that made me to stick to their principles but discard everything they have to say about the origin of life



Again, Philisophical teachings,arising from the thoughts of a random individual isnt to be taken that seriously, those scientific books written by the well-renowned scientists I talked about from my first comment were taking really seriously cause i had even read the counter arguments of other scientists, who were even christains but lacked convincing verifiable argument, an example is the Russell Wallace letters to Charles Darwin, trying to refute the effect of Natural selelction on species with higher faculties (This letter was the same reason why Darwins theory never covered the Evolution of Man) yet I still find Wallace assumptions wrong and sticked to Darwin's proven theory even though it has limitations but it has more substantial points than any other

This is similar to those attacks on Galileo Galilei after his claims that the earth wasnt flat...I am sure u know how the church started persecuting him blindly

That u think i do not even read those other books by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawkings with an open mind just showed that u think u have been debating with a conc xtian and thats never true




Even scientists were quick to discard some hypothesis from earlier Greek philosophers cause they lack verifiable evidences and thats why Einstein later said that "Galileo was the first true Philosophical scientist cause he not only opined, but he demonstrated it with inventions"



Those are the reasonds why i rate Science over everything, hence my first comment about those great books written by notable scientists

So u think i just went about listing names of philosophers and their books when U havent even suggested i read up on any book, to maybe open my mind the more or to counter all I have been saying

So funny that u think that i, who listed those names havent taken my time to study things deeply and with a open mind but you, that couldnt even mention either a book by a scientist or a philosopher or even an Artist should be the one to tell me on how to explore other aspects

Its more funny, when u think i am not open-minded enough yet read those tons of books, isnt that a waste of my time?

Then u whose pre-existing notion about xtians hasnt made u givr a true counter arguement to all i have been saying but only to tell me to explore other aspects with no true info on either a book, an Artist or why they could have superior argument over science, think you have a more balance arguement on this issue

I'm not your average Theist

Well, it doesn't matter how many books you have read or how many names you can recite. What matters is the quality and validity of your reasoning, which you have failed to demonstrate, as far as I can tell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have overcome your confirmation bias and examined these fields objectively. You think that by dropping some names of famous philosophers, you can somehow bolster your credibility and avoid addressing the actual arguments? That's now how it works, my dear. I wanted to tell you that you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy, but you've ignored all the other flaws I highlighted in your points without addressing them, so why bother?

And why do you feel the need to meet with me one-on-one before you share your insights and arguments? So far, we've been having this discussion on a public forum, and I don't necessarily think this has to be a private conversation. Go ahead and show us how you have mastered these complex schools of thought and how they have led you to your current beliefs. Or are you afraid that your arguments would not withstand the scrutiny and criticism of others? Are you afraid that you might be exposed as a pretentious and dogmatic person who has not really understood or appreciated the depth and diversity of human thought? Are you afraid that you might be challenged to reconsider your assumptions and beliefs and possibly change your mind?

I think most people will be amused at your casual dismissal of the insights of philosophers as mere "thoughts of a random individual," while readily accepting the pronouncements of "well-renowned scientists" as gospel. Interesting double standard, wouldn't you say? Both philosophers and scientists are humans, after all, capable of brilliance and bias alike, and any critical thinker worth his salt knows that both science and philosophy are invaluable tools for understanding the world, and both require careful analysis and critical evaluation. As for the Russell Wallace letters, it appears you've fallen prey to a common misconception. Wallace, despite some initial objections, ultimately became a staunch supporter of Darwin's theory. In fact, their collaboration played a crucial role in presenting the theory of evolution to the scientific community. I'm not sure where you got the dodgy idea that Darwin's theory "never covered the Evolution of Man". Darwin, in his book On the Origin of Species, explicitly discussed the evolution of humans through natural selection. He elaborated on this further in his later work, The Descent of Man.

Claiming that scientists readily discarded all of ancient Greek ideas is factually inaccurate. Many Greek philosophical concepts, like logic and mathematics, laid the foundation for future scientific advancements. Unless you can provide a citation to the contrary, I will posit that your claim that "Einstein called Galileo the first true philosophical scientist" is likely a misinterpretation. While Einstein admired Galileo's approach, he didn't label him as the "first philosophical scientist". However he did call Galileo the "father of modern physics and natural science", however, he did not intend to dismiss or diminish the contributions of the earlier Greek philosophers, but to highlight the significance and impact of Galileo's work. If you can't cite your source, then the historical inaccuracy of your claim casts doubt on the accuracy of your other claims.

Many of the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Democritus, and Aristotle, made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and logic, among others. They laid the foundations for the scientific method, by using observation, reasoning, and experimentation to investigate the natural world. They also proposed some hypotheses that were remarkably accurate, such as the atomic theory, the heliocentric model, and the sphericity of the Earth. So claiming that scientists were quick to discard some hypotheses from earlier Greek philosophers because they lacked verifiable evidence betrays a profound ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. It is a gross oversimplification and distortion of the complex and nuanced development of scientific thought. Of course, they also made some mistakes and assumptions that were later proven wrong, such as the geocentric model, the four elements, and the spontaneous generation of life. But this does not diminish their achievements or their influence on the subsequent generations of scientists. Science is not a linear progression of truth, but a cumulative and collaborative process of discovery, correction, and refinement.

Now, for the record, I never said you didn't study things deeply and with an open mind. You keep missing the point. Listing names of philosophers and their books is not evidence of understanding or critical thinking. It's evidence of memorization and regurgitation. Anyone can do that with enough time and effort. What matters is how you apply what you learned, how you analyze the arguments, how you compare and contrast different perspectives, and how you evaluate the validity and soundness of the claims. That's what I was looking for in your response, but instead, you gave me a laundry list of names and titles, as if that was supposed to impress me or prove your point.

I don't remember bragging that I had a more balanced argument than you. In fact, I never claimed to have any argument at all, actually. I replied to your initial post on this thread for two reasons: (1) to defend atheism from misrepresentations, and (2) to challenge your assertion that you found religious explanations more convincing than anything else, after exploring various disciplines. I was expecting you to justify your position, to explain why you reached those conclusions, and to provide some examples of how you applied the methods and principles of those disciplines to your inquiry. At this point, I might be sounding like a broken record, but I'll say it again for the sake of posterity: Whatever you choose to believe is none of my concern.

I find it hilarious that you think I should suggest any books for you to read. I thought you already claimed to have read almost everything available on certain philosophers? Suggesting books for you is not my responsibility or obligation, neither is it a sign of intellectual curiosity. If I'm being blatantly honest, your arguments so far have been vague and unsubstantiated, and I'm just being polite with that assessment. So far, you have continued to ignore my points, cast aspersions on my character, resort to emotional appeals, and employ rhetorical tricks. So you really can't attack me for not giving you a "counter argument", when you haven't given me any tangible argument to begin with.

RickyJesus:

The fact that you have to quote me twice with different version of geberrish prove I need not take your opinion serious.

You're right, you're right.
Clap for yourself

by far, RELIGION (and their invisible gods), takes the crown.

JessicaRabbit:



Well, it doesn't matter how many books you have read or how many names you can recite. What matters is the quality and validity of your reasoning, which you have failed to demonstrate, as far as I can tell. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you have overcome your confirmation bias and examined these fields objectively. You think that by dropping some names of famous philosophers, you can somehow bolster your credibility and avoid addressing the actual arguments? That's now how it works, my dear. I wanted to tell you that you're committing an appeal to authority fallacy, but you've ignored all the other flaws I highlighted in your points without addressing them, so why bother?

And why do you feel the need to meet with me one-on-one before you share your insights and arguments? So far, we've been having this discussion on a public forum, and I don't necessarily think this has to be a private conversation. Go ahead and show us how you have mastered these complex schools of thought and how they have led you to your current beliefs. Or are you afraid that your arguments would not withstand the scrutiny and criticism of others? Are you afraid that you might be exposed as a pretentious and dogmatic person who has not really understood or appreciated the depth and diversity of human thought? Are you afraid that you might be challenged to reconsider your assumptions and beliefs and possibly change your mind?

I think most people will be amused at your casual dismissal of the insights of philosophers as mere "thoughts of a random individual," while readily accepting the pronouncements of "well-renowned scientists" as gospel. Interesting double standard, wouldn't you say? Both philosophers and scientists are humans, after all, capable of brilliance and bias alike, and any critical thinker worth his salt knows that both science and philosophy are invaluable tools for understanding the world, and both require careful analysis and critical evaluation. As for the Russell Wallace letters, it appears you've fallen prey to a common misconception. Wallace, despite some initial objections, ultimately became a staunch supporter of Darwin's theory. In fact, their collaboration played a crucial role in presenting the theory of evolution to the scientific community. I'm not sure where you got the dodgy idea that Darwin's theory "never covered the Evolution of Man". Darwin, in his book On the Origin of Species, explicitly discussed the evolution of humans through natural selection. He elaborated on this further in his later work, The Descent of Man.

Claiming that scientists readily discarded all of ancient Greek ideas is factually inaccurate. Many Greek philosophical concepts, like logic and mathematics, laid the foundation for future scientific advancements. Unless you can provide a citation to the contrary, I will posit that your claim that "Einstein called Galileo the first true philosophical scientist" is likely a misinterpretation. While Einstein admired Galileo's approach, he didn't label him as the "first philosophical scientist". However he did call Galileo the "father of modern physics and natural science", however, he did not intend to dismiss or diminish the contributions of the earlier Greek philosophers, but to highlight the significance and impact of Galileo's work. If you can't cite your source, then the historical inaccuracy of your claim casts doubt on the accuracy of your other claims.

Many of the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximander, Pythagoras, Democritus, and Aristotle, made significant contributions to the fields of mathematics, physics, astronomy, biology, and logic, among others. They laid the foundations for the scientific method, by using observation, reasoning, and experimentation to investigate the natural world. They also proposed some hypotheses that were remarkably accurate, such as the atomic theory, the heliocentric model, and the sphericity of the Earth. So claiming that scientists were quick to discard some hypotheses from earlier Greek philosophers because they lacked verifiable evidence betrays a profound ignorance of the history and philosophy of science. It is a gross oversimplification and distortion of the complex and nuanced development of scientific thought. Of course, they also made some mistakes and assumptions that were later proven wrong, such as the geocentric model, the four elements, and the spontaneous generation of life. But this does not diminish their achievements or their influence on the subsequent generations of scientists. Science is not a linear progression of truth, but a cumulative and collaborative process of discovery, correction, and refinement.

Now, for the record, I never said you didn't study things deeply and with an open mind. You keep missing the point. Listing names of philosophers and their books is not evidence of understanding or critical thinking. It's evidence of memorization and regurgitation. Anyone can do that with enough time and effort. What matters is how you apply what you learned, how you analyze the arguments, how you compare and contrast different perspectives, and how you evaluate the validity and soundness of the claims. That's what I was looking for in your response, but instead, you gave me a laundry list of names and titles, as if that was supposed to impress me or prove your point.

I don't remember bragging that I had a more balanced argument than you. In fact, I never claimed to have any argument at all, actually. I replied to your initial post on this thread for two reasons: (1) to defend atheism from misrepresentations, and (2) to challenge your assertion that you found religious explanations more convincing than anything else, after exploring various disciplines. I was expecting you to justify your position, to explain why you reached those conclusions, and to provide some examples of how you applied the methods and principles of those disciplines to your inquiry. At this point, I might be sounding like a broken record, but I'll say it again for the sake of posterity: Whatever you choose to believe is none of my concern.

I find it hilarious that you think I should suggest any books for you to read. I thought you already claimed to have read almost everything available on certain philosophers? Suggesting books for you is not my responsibility or obligation, neither is it a sign of intellectual curiosity. If I'm being blatantly honest, your arguments so far have been vague and unsubstantiated, and I'm just being polite with that assessment. So far, you have continued to ignore my points, cast aspersions on my character, resort to emotional appeals, and employ rhetorical tricks. So you really can't attack me for not giving you a "counter argument", when you haven't given me any tangible argument to begin with.

I dont know if u really derive joy in talking down on people and its actually mentally draining arguing with u since you already had your belief on what an average xtian could argue on and thats very troubling


I said some 'Philosophical hypothesis' not all we all know about Leucipus and Democritus(The Atomists), Pythagoras,Parmenides,Anaxagoras and many others , starting from the times of the first man to suggest the earh must couldnt have been flat, thats Aristarchus of Samos and Thales with his ancient proposed calendar method, who lived earlier than the rest and Erasthotenes who was the most accurate in his calculations of the dimaeter of the Earth, despite using crude methods

My point was that those who were quick to opine anything that couldnt be verified by basic scientific methods were discarded and this very god argument is well within that category....Again, I really dont know how u mixed things up here

As for the Einstein claims on Galileo, I only paraphased and u captured it correctly that Galileo was the father or whatever,Einstein was a bit elaborate here tho "https://brewminate.com/galileo-galilei-a-scientific-break-from-aristotle/"

And yeah, I agree i havr no argument as my first comment was about the somce scientific books I read and why i stopped being an Atheist, you've never read those books nor know what they entailed, so u actually expected me to start summarizing the books to u, go ahead to list the point i disagree with while u start dissecting each point??

U never asked me to give reasons why i disagree with those scientists, so how was i supposed to go about explaining myself to just anyone that cares to know why, Instead, U started the whole thing by telling me why i need to explore other aspects aside Science and I keep telling u the reason why i discarded Art and music as not effective enough...So yea, the counter points u raised were so watery I never really know the point of the first tag/quote was about

That aside, U wanted me start typing about the big bang theory, selfish gene, and also typing out the counter scientific claims that made me drop them??
U think I would type that long to convince an atheist who hasnt yet pick up the books to read??


Read it up then we can start altogether....

Imagine telling me i have no valid point when your first tag was just about suggesting that i check things from other perspective and not about the main issue at all

She even thought i kept mentioning names to impress her....I don suffer

U keep hitting me with impolite words and making it seem like I am being emotional about lil things...read your first papragraph again and see how insulting it sounds

If u want a proper discourse, stop the personal attack already cause it all started when u started talking about some fallcies common to all xtians at the second tag cause i was careful enough not to use stereotypes on all atheist,In fact, you have mentioned the word "xtians" than i hacve ever ever mentioned anything atheist.... stop reading more meanings to what is written here as it makes the whole things tiring, doing the same thing u have always accused xtians for

DevilsEqual:



I dont know if u really derive joy in talking down on people and its actually mentally draining arguing with u since you already had your belief on what an average xtian could argue on and thats very troubling


I said some 'Philosophical hypothesis' not all we all know about Leucipus and Democritus(The Atomists), Pythagoras,Parmenides,Anaxagoras and many others , starting from the times of the first man to suggest the earh must couldnt have been flat, thats Aristarchus of Samos and Thales with his ancient proposed calendar method, who lived earlier than the rest and Erasthotenes who was the most accurate in his calculations of the dimaeter of the Earth, despite using crude methods

My point was that those who were quick to opine anything that couldnt be verified by basic scientific methods were discarded and this very god argument is well within that category....Again, I really dont know how u mixed things up here

As for the Einstein claims on Galileo, I only paraphased and u captured it correctly that Galileo was the father or whatever,Einstein was a bit elaborate here tho "https://brewminate.com/galileo-galilei-a-scientific-break-from-aristotle/"

And yeah, I agree i havr no argument as my first comment was about the somce scientific books I read and why i stopped being an Atheist, you've never read those books nor know what they entailed, so u actually expected me to start summarizing the books to u, go ahead to list the point i disagree with while u start dissecting each point??

U never asked me to give reasons why i disagree with those scientists, so how was i supposed to go about explaining myself to just anyone that cares to know why, Instead, U started the whole thing by telling me why i need to explore other aspects aside Science and I keep telling u the reason why i discarded Art and music as not effective enough...So yea, the counter points u raised were so watery I never really know the point of the first tag/quote was about

That aside, U wanted me start typing about the big bang theory, selfish gene, and also typing out the counter scientific claims that made me drop them??
U think I would type that long to convince an atheist who hasnt yet pick up the books to read??


Read it up then we can start altogether....

Imagine telling me i have no valid point when your first tag was just about suggesting that i check things from other perspective and not about the main issue at all

She even thought i kept mentioning names to impress her....I don suffer

U keep hitting me with impolite words and making it seem like I am being emotional about lil things...read your first papragraph again and see how insulting it sounds

If u want a proper discourse, stop the personal attack already cause it all started when u started talking about some fallcies common to all xtians at the second tag cause i was careful enough not to use stereotypes on all atheist,In fact, you have mentioned the word "xtians" than i hacve ever ever mentioned anything atheist.... stop reading more meanings to what is written here as it makes the whole things tiring, doing the same thing u have always accused xtians for

I think you need to educate yourself on the difference between critiquing arguments and critiquing people. When I identify inconsistencies, fallacies, or misinterpretations, I point them out, hoping to stimulate deeper understanding, not personal attacks. If you choose to take my words personally, then that's your kettle of fish, but I'm not going to water down my style of debate and pander to the emotional needs of my co-discussant. I've been debating religion and philosophy for the entirety of my adult life, and a common, unspoken axiom in all the forums I've ever participated in is that bad ideas exist to be destroyed. All im doing here is analyzing the logic and evidence you present. My approach stems from a desire for clear and well-reasoned arguments. You mentioned that I have made preconceived notions about the arguments Christians might present. However, I've already pointed out that this is based on my previous encounters with individuals who share similar viewpoints. At the base level, I approach all discussion with an open mind, ready to be surprised and learn from different perspectives, like I'm doing now. Regarding your claim that I haven't presented any counter-arguments, I would implore you to revisit my previous responses and read them more carefully. Read my posts to understand me, not just to give me a response. In your most recent post for example, I meticulously addressed your points, highlighting your fallacy of appealing to authority (scientists and philosophers) without addressing the actual arguments, the alleged statement Einstein made about Galileo, the Russell-Wallace letters and your oversimplification of the relationship between science and ancient Greek philosophy.

Now, I believe you're still showcasing a selective understanding of history, as well as a flawed comprehension of the scientific method. I'll try my best to demonstrate why. You said that scientists discarded some philosophical hypotheses because they weren't verifiable. First of all, you're neglecting the fact that science itself builds upon and evolved from philosophical inquiries! But it goes beyond mere hypothesizing. Science relies on rigorous testing, empirical evidence and reproducibility to validate its claims. You listed names of more Greek scholars and claimed that their were all discarded, but that is totally misleading. The atomic theory of Democritus, for instance, laid the foundation for modern atomic theory, albeit in a much more rudimentary form. Similarly, Pythagoras' mathematical theorems remain fundamental to this day. As for Thales and Aristarchus of Samos challenging the flat Earth model, the reason their ideas were not readily accepted back then was precisely because they lacked conclusivr evidence at the time. It took centuries of further observation, experimentation, and advancements in technology to definitively establish the Earth's spherical shape. Science progresses incrementally, not through sudden leaps of "discarding" previous ideas. Eratosthenes' calculation of the Earth's diameter was indeed impressive for his time, and it further highlights the evolution of scientific accuracy Modern technology allows for far more precise measurements. This doesn't diminish Eratosthenes' achievement, but underscores how science constantly refines and improves upon existing knowledge. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you were using these examples to suggest that atheists are in too much of a haste to discard God arguments? If that was your end-goal, then my response will be to point out the fact (again) that atheism simply means a "lack of belief" in gods. Speaking for myself, if I were to encounter new evidence that proves conclusively that God exists, I'd readily accept it. But in the absence of convincing evidence, I think I am justified to withhold my belief for the meantime. Concerning Einstein's comments on Galileo, I will only note that paraphrasing, while helpful in conveying ideas, may often allow inaccuracies to creep in when trying to analyze what someone actually said. Perhaps strive for a faithful representation of the original source in the future to avoid misinterpretations or misinterpretations.

I remember you stating that you found religious explanations more convincing after exploring various disciplines. I was simply inviting you to elaborate on that statement, explain your reasoning, and showcase how you applied these disciplines to your beliefs. I'm curious by the way, how can you claim that you stopped being an atheist based on scientific books I haven't read, and then expect me to summarize and dissect your argument points based on these unknown sources? How does that make any sense to you? The one making the claim (you, in this case) has the responsibility to provide evidence and support, not the one questioning it (me). Your comments constantly imply that I haven't engaged with scientific sources. I've actually encountered and evaluated various scientific arguments for and against religion, in tandem with the relevant literature, through many years of experience handling these topics. But let us assume that I haven't read the specific books you referenced. Do you honestly think a responsible debater would assume a lack of knowledge based on such limited information? If you have specific arguments you now want to discuss, I'm happy to engage in a civil and open discussion. However, I cannot dissect points you haven't presented yet. Additionally, attacking my character or accusing me of not having read certain books doesn't add any substance to your argument.

Science is not the only way to gain knowledge, but it's certainly the most reliable and rigorous one. And if you want to challenge science, you have to use science, not just your personal opinions or preferences. I never asked you to start typing about the big bang theory, selfish gene etc. I only asked you to give some examples of how you applied the methods and principles of the disciplines you claimed to have explored. You were the one who brought up those topics, not me. You were the one who said you found them unconvincing, not me. You were the one who implied that you had some counter arguments, not me. So don't blame me for your inability or unwillingness to explain yourself. And don't pretend that you're too busy or too lazy to type a few paragraphs. You clearly have enough time to respond to me, so why not use that time and energy to actually make a coherent and valid argument? Or better yet, why not read some of the books that you claim to have read, and learn something from them?