thehomer:

Are you afraid of a little challenge? Sure the criticism seems one-sided. It is probably because the Christians have no or very poor basis for their beliefs as has been regularly demonstrated.
Aww you think the Muslims are left out? Its just that they're not as active as the Christians. Besides, their board is simply too boring. I just leave it up to believers like you to take them on. I'm just surprised that you do not see you're in the same boat as they are.

hmmm what challenge exactly?   I dont remember shying away from taking you hucksters on when i get the change. I think you over-estimate your own sense of intelligence and importance.

thehomer:

No I do not believe the earth appeared by magic. Last time I checked, that was the sort of thing religious people believe - magic that is.

pray tell, how did it appear since i now believe God didnt create it either . . . help us oh "god" thehomer.

thehomer:

As usual, when you're unable to actually address any points, you simply start making off point posts. Maybe you need a little something to help you stay focused.

As if you have any worthwhile points to address.   See who is talking of "focus" --- one who is not sure whether he is interested or "not interested" in the post I made which his insecurity simply could not bear.

A militant fundamentalist atheist and his beliefs (including some of the daftest beliefs ever known to mankind) saying Christian beliefs are irrational.  

Anyway, as I always say, anywhere you see an evangelical atheist even on his own you see the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  

davidylan:

hmmm what challenge exactly?   I dont remember shying away from taking you hucksters on when i get the change. I think you over-estimate your own sense of intelligence and importance.

Are you ready for the resurrection of some threads?
No, my sense of intelligence is well tuned based on the knowledge I have. You on the other hand seem unable to keep track of what you know, what you don't know and what you know you don't know. You know I'm referring to. Go ahead, say it.

davidylan:

pray tell, how did it appear since i now believe God didnt create it either . . . help us oh "god" thehomer.

Now now. Unlike the God you're used to, I don't desire worship.
For you to know, it would require extensive reading and many hours of contemplation among other things. Are you ready for such an undertaking?

thehomer:

Now now. Unlike the God you're used to, I don't desire worship.
For you to know, it would require extensive reading and many hours of contemplation among other things. Are you ready for such an undertaking?

Nah it really doesnt take that much. There is only 1 single ingredient to make an atheist - a dedicated hatred of the christian God. Much of the "knowledge" you claim is merely plagiarised from the ill-thought musings of others as justification for your stance.
That would be a total waste of time on my part.
With regard to the earlier comment, utter nonsense.

Enigma:

As if you have any worthwhile points to address.   See who is talking of "focus" --- one who is not sure whether he is interested or "not interested" in the post I made which his insecurity simply could not bear.

A militant fundamentalist atheist and his beliefs (including some of the daftest beliefs ever known to mankind) saying Christian beliefs are irrational.  

Anyway, as I always say, anywhere you see an evangelical atheist even on his own you see the worst case of the Dunning-Kruger effect.  

An accurate diagnosis of yourself I see. Hmm you seem to have some insight into your problems but you're just rationalizing it away. That is among the most difficult psychological problems people in your shoes often face.
Carefully note what I'm not interested in for your reading comprehension.

thehomer:

Now now. Unlike the God you're used to, I don't desire worship.
For you to know, it would require extensive reading and many hours of contemplation among other things. Are you ready for such an undertaking?

It really doesnt require that much dancing around the point. What is your succinct opinion of how the world was formed? Very simple question requiring a simple answer . . . understanding that answer is another issue entirely and no one has asked you to prove it.

thehomer:

An accurate diagnosis of yourself I see. Hmm you seem to have some insight into your problems but you're just rationalizing it away. That is among the most difficult psychological problems people in your shoes often face.
Carefully note what I'm not interested in for your reading comprehension.

Me a militant fundamentalist atheist?

Shirley, this one has gone gaga!  

The one way the post can make sense is that I am a religionist just like the militant/fundamentalist/evangelical atheists are religionists.  

davidylan:

Nah it really doesnt take that much. There is only 1 single ingredient to make an atheist - a dedicated hatred of the christian God. Much of the "knowledge" you claim is merely plagiarised from the ill-thought musings of others as justification for your stance.

Actually it does. I see you're not ready to learn. Oh well just what is to be expected. Besides, you need to realize that people don't hate what they don't believe is present though they can hate the idea of it. Ill thought musings?   With that brilliant stroke, davidylan has toppled the works of Einstein, Darwin, Newton, Galileo even some of Aristotle's more accurate musings. Good job.

davidylan:

That would be a total waste of time on my part.

Learning is a waste of time on your part? Hmm so sad.
In the words of the Chinese, "Learning is a treasure that will follow its owner everywhere." Yet you willfully reject it.

davidylan:

With regard to the earlier comment, utter nonsense.

What part?

davidylan:

It really doesnt require that much dancing around the point. What is your succinct opinion of how the world was formed? Very simple question requiring a simple answer . . . understanding that answer is another issue entirely and no one has asked you to prove it.

Ah but you see, in your ignorance, you think it just has a simple answer. Really, you need some background knowledge to even begin.

Enigma:

Me a militant fundamentalist atheist?

Shirley, this one has gone gaga!  

The one way the post can make sense is that I am a religionist just like the militant/fundamentalist/evangelical atheists are religionists.  

Wow just wow. You don't even understand your own post. Carefully read through your post and discover what diagnosis you made.
I'm sometimes just embarrassed when speaking with people who don't even understand their own words.

^^^ Your comprehension has always been poor; remember, that is why you were named Mr Dunce which so far I have been trying not to use simply out of kindness.

thehomer:

Ah but you see, in your ignorance, you think it just has a simple answer. Really, you need some background knowledge to even begin.

More circular piffle. You can never get an atheist to admit his belief in one single sentence. Perhaps its because 99% of them require cutting and pasting the thoughts of others.

^^^ And usually they are just cutting and pasting (or otherwise regurgitating) the thoughts of very poor thinkers if not indeed out and out morons.

Enigma:

^^^ And usually they are just cutting and pasting (or otherwise regurgitating) the thoughts of very poor thinkers if not indeed out and out morons.

No surprises there . . . if they didnt have google i doubt any of them would be confident enough to post here. Thank God for the internet.

Here we go again. . . .People that believe in the mythologies and folklore of ancients Jews and Greeks have no business calling others poor thinkers, since all what they are defending and parroting are just mere opinions, fantasies and cleverly invented mythologies of ancient men that thought their God lives in the sky and they can reach to him if only they build a tower high enough. . . .What you are defending are not even you thougts but the fantasies and mythologies invented by the ancients yet you still use the word poor thinkers on others?. . . .

what is a tribute to Hitchens doing in the Religion Section.

I really don't think a tribute to Hitchens in this section is misplaced.  Hitchens was perhaps best known for his religious views, however anti.  Agreed, he was many things, but his religious views were arguably the most pronounced.

frosbel:

It took death to turn Christopher into a believer.

When asked sometimes last year about his thoughts about the afterlife and whether he'd convert at his death bed, knowing he would die soon anyway, here's what he said:

"I would say it fractionally increases my contempt for the false consolation element of religion and my dislike for the dictatorial and totalitarian part of it.

"It’s considered perfectly normal in this society to approach dying people who you don’t know but who are unbelievers and say, ‘Now are you gonna change your mind?’ That is considered almost a polite question.

"And as you know, there's a long history of fraud about this - people claim that Darwin had a death bed recantation, they made up lies about Thomas Paine, it goes on all the time. . ."

See video below:

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbBVB66DC5k&feature=related[/flash]

Enigma:

^^^ Your comprehension has always been poor; remember, that is why you were named Mr Dunce which so far I have been trying not to use simply out of kindness.

Yet another off point post. Didn't you see the self diagnosis you made or you just didn't understand your own post? I could help you point out the diagnosis you know.

davidylan:

More circular piffle. You can never get an atheist to admit his belief in one single sentence. Perhaps its because 99% of them require cutting and pasting the thoughts of others.

Maybe or maybe it is because the ideas being discussed are complex. And from the looks of things, you don't seem ready to learn.

Enigma:

^^^ And usually they are just cutting and pasting (or otherwise regurgitating) the thoughts of very poor thinkers if not indeed out and out morons.

Hmm so leading scientists, writers and orators past and present are very poor thinkers or morons? This coming from a poor thinker? Not surprising.

davidylan:

No surprises there . . . if they didnt have google i doubt any of them would be confident enough to post here. Thank God for the internet.

Yes thank God for the Internet and the printing press before it. For some reason, such advances bother you religious believers deeply.

Still - and in addition to my earlier comment - I haven't seen anyone here rebuke frosbel, a well known Christian fanatic on Nairaland, for also creating a thread about Hitchens right here in the Religion section.

Even more, the actual author of the tribute in that thread is a Christian blogger who posted the original article on his Christian blog.  There have been a few other religionists who have commented on his death, like Rick Warren on Twitter, like this blogger, like the fool in the video below, who claimed God sent Hitchens to hell because he loved him, etc.

So I see no reason why thehomer is being attacked for doing what even religious people have been doing as well, unless the argument is that an atheist shouldn't pay tribute to a fellow atheist in the Religion section, which isn't a sound argument seeing that even religious people are doing the exact same thing.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FmIMAA46A8&feature=related[/flash]

Even Google are paying their own "tribute" right here on this page. (See ad at top and bottom of the page)

thehomer:

Maybe or maybe it is because the ideas being discussed are complex. And from the looks of things, you don't seem ready to learn.

The truth in this matter is actually rather simple, and dodging the simple question posed looks very escapist and lame, and might I respectfully add: cowardly.

I say this because if i were in your position the one-line answer to David's question would simply be as follows -

"From the point of a singularity, the universe following the initial expansion called the big b[b]a[/b]ng has expanded outwards in a flow of matter of energy, the movement of which has resulted in the formaltion of stars and galaxies, and colliding rocks around stars coalesce to form planets such as the earth, which under the right conditions could also harbour life."

There is nothing overwhelmingly complex about that, and claiming as such rather makes the claimant appear as though he is in awe of elementary concepts. It is not necessarily true that either David or I would accept this as a complete answer, but it at least deals with the basics without unnecessary cop-outs. From such an answer, David could then respond appropriately, or was your intention only to brick-bat puerile sarcasm?

I say this because David obviously knows your ideas on this subject: he asked simply to elicit a working answer that he could effectively challange.

Purist:

Still - and in addition to my earlier comment - I haven't seen anyone here rebuke frosbel, a well known Christian fanatic on Nairaland, for also creating a thread about Hitchens right here in the Religion section.

Even more, the actual author of the tribute in that thread is a Christian blogger who posted the original article on his Christian blog. There have been a few other religionists who have commented on his death, like Rick Warren on Twitter, like this blogger, like the fool in the video below, who claimed God sent Hitchens to hell because he loved him, etc.

So I see no reason why thehomer is being attacked for doing what even religious people have been doing as well, unless the argument is that an atheist shouldn't pay tribute to a fellow atheist in the Religion section, which isn't a sound argument seeing that even religious people are doing the exact same thing.

[flash=400,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FmIMAA46A8&feature=related[/flash]

I doubt that Hitchen's atheism was his distinguising feature: here was a celebrated writer in many respects. Our own Wole Soyinka is well known to be perhaps atheistic or pagan - and I doubt that his death should elicit tributes on a (largely Christian) Religion Board.

Nevertheless, well put. I concede the point.

Deep Sight:

The truth in this matter is actually rather simple, and dodging the simple question posed looks very escapist and lame, and might I respectfully add: cowardly.

Making such an accusation on my response demonstrates a sort of deep ignorance about what we know and how we've come to know it.

Deep Sight:

I say this because if i were in your position the one-line answer to David's question would simply be as follows -

"From the point of a singularity, the universe following the initial expansion called the big b[b]a[/b]ng has expanded outwards in a flow of matter of energy, the movement of which has resulted in the formaltion of stars and galaxies, and colliding rocks around stars coalesce to form planets such as the earth, which under the right conditions could also harbour life."

Well, good for you. Now you can tell that to davidylan and see how well he accepts it. Maybe you don't realize it but in that statement, you have expressed the ideas of theoretical physicists, astro physicists and cosmologists with the beginnings of the ideas of biologists.

Deep Sight:

There is nothing overwhelmingly complex about that, and claiming as such rather makes the claimant appear as though he is in awe of elementary concepts. It is not necessarily true that either David or I would accept this as a complete answer, but it at least deals with the basics without unnecessary cop-outs. From such an answer, David could then respond appropriately, or was your intention only to brick-bat puerile sarcasm?

You don't think what you said above is a complex idea? Maybe you and I have different ideas of what it takes for an idea to be considered complex. Since you both probably won't accept it a complete answer, what do I do? Give you complete lectures on the fields involved or send you to the works of people who have looked into the phenomena under discussion? Don't you think that would take many hours of work and a dedication to learning?
No that wasn't my intention though it appears to be yours and davidylan's. Take a look at his posts.

Deep Sight:

I say this because David obviously knows your ideas on this subject: he asked simply to elicit a working answer that he could effectively challange.

Rubbish. If he knows my ideas on this subject, then why not pose a more focused question? And at the very least, why doesn't he give the impression that he is willing to put in the hours to learn new things rather than making all sorts of unintelligent noise?

Deep Sight:

I doubt that Hitchen's atheism was his distinguising feature: here was a celebrated writer in many respects.

Whose attacks on religion were widely known and celebrated.

Deep Sight:

Our own Wole Soyinka is well known to be perhaps atheistic or pagan - and I doubt that his death should elicit tributes on a (largely Christian) Religion Board.

You think so? Also note that Wole Soyinka isn't quite as vocal as Hitchens on his ideas against religions generally and the large monotheistic religions.

Deep Sight:

Nevertheless, well put. I concede the point.

Good for you.