₦airaland Forum

Delafruita: first,what is atheism?in the broad context,it is a disbelief in the idea of God as been spread by religionist.

O stop being such a toad. This is not the definition of atheism.

The definition of atheism says nothing about "as being spread by the religionist."

MacDaddy01: Sorry, are you a christian deist?

Deism (i/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/) is a religious philosophy which holds that reason and observation of the natural world, without the need for organized religion, can determine that the universe is the product of a creator

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

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

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

Got it?

MacDaddy01: You mad? Deist is an atheist with no convictions

Abeg go COLLECT refund of ya school fees.

Neo-Pagan, Henothesit, Deist, Cultural activist, Scientist, Skeptic, Technologist, Atheist

Please do not put the two bolded words in the same sentence again.

MacDaddy01: What? You dont like plantain?

I prefer banku with raw pepper and fish

Seun: People dream so many dreams every night. Most of them don't come true. Once in a while, something similar to, but not exactly the same as, an event in a dream might happen in real life. This is means nothing. If you roll a pair of dice many times, once in a while you'll get two sixes. What does that mean? Nothing.


I've had many feelings: headaches, cramps, stomach ache, annoyance, anger, fear, joy, satisfaction. They are all just feelings.


Nope, that's just the way things are. There are many disorderly and senseless things in the universe too. Means nothing.

I have often had the feeling that being the owner of this forum you would be the repository of all the wisdom and foolishness that has herein passed. It appears that you are the repository of the latter, but not of the former.

MacDaddy01: You ashamed that you got exposed for you stup.idity?

o SHAT AP again there.

Got nothing to prove to any dodos around here please.

Delafruita: i have not read this comment and i cannot believe that anyone else will be st.upid enough to comment on a comment he has not read

O shat ap.

What NANSENSE.

Delafruita: i have not read this comment and i cannot believe that anyone else will be st.upid enough to comment on a comment he has not read

O shat ap.

MacDaddy01: Where have you been? Been expecting you!

The title put me off. What ridiculous nonsense.

This self-congratulatory fellow has not even scratched the surface of what many eminent atheists on this forum have put forth. His threads a childish and st.upid, shallow, devoid of intellect or scholarship, and frankly irritating.

Delafruita: give one evidence outside the Bible for the eistence of Yahweh GOD

Your magnificent brain.

I have not read this thread and i cannot believe that any one else will be st.upid enough to read it.

[quote author=Mad_Max]

"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."[/quote]Another one of the best.

justcool: I have never read anything so wise, from a human being, in my entire life. If only everybody would be this objective and honest.

I find it impossible to believe that some people do not perceive, not even suspect that there is a mysterious force that guides every process including the process of evolution.

Another one.

justcool: Its funny how in reading the explanation of natural selection one, whose eyes are open, can clearly see that humans are not just products of natural selection. The theory itself testifies that humans are just products of nature, like animals. All animals behaviour can be explained through the theory of evolution and natural selection. But in the case of humans, we find behaviours that did not originate from the natural laws of selection and evolution. There is something in humans that to some extent, even goes contrary to what one would expect from nature. Behaviorally humans have some qualities that could not have been products of biological evolution.

Let just give one example--shame.

Shame is peculiar with humans; and actually, to some extent it goes contrary to evolution because the feeling of shame curtails mating, which is necessary for the reproduction. Since one of the goals of adaptation is to produce offspring, why would humans evolve the feeling of shame which interferes with their mating.
Two healthy animals at the mating period, once they come in contact and once all the prerequisites are met, they mate. This not feeling guilty about mating allows them to mate often and this ensures more offspring. Also, this not being ashamed to show their privates and not being ashamed of who is watching them makes it very easy for them to mate.

But when two healthy humans, of the right age met, they don’t just take of their cloths and mate. Shame comes in to prevent them from doing this. The woman never feels very comfortable walking around unclothed, neither does the man. Why would they evolve this hindrance to mating which is necessary for the survival of their specie.

And actually why wear cloths at all; their bodies could have adapted to regional temperatures like animal bodies. The answer is that humans wear cloths because they are ashamed of being unclothed. But why would this feeling of shame exist, if humans are just biological entities. Why did they evolve this feeling of shame; why be ashamed of your unclothedness when you have to be naked to perform one of the rituals that ensure the survival of your specie? It doesn’t make sense.

It is easy to explain, through the theory of evolution, why creatures evolved the urge to mate, mating is necessary for them to reproduce. But how can you, in the light of the theory of evolution, explain the feeling of shame in humans.

Humans, like all animals, feel the urge to mate( physical intimacy), this is natural, and can be explained by natural selection and evolution. But in the case of humans, this urge for intercourse is usually accompanied by or hindered by the feeling of shame.

To me, this is one of the evidences that humans are not just biological entities. Granted our bodies are biological vehicles which came about through the process of evolution. But inside us resides something else, something that is alien to the physical.  That’s why you cant explain away the behavior of humans, in the light of the theory of evolution.   

Another one is “conscience.”  This is another thing that humans poses that animals do not poses; and “conscience” is not necessary for biological evolution and natural selection. To some extent it actually detrimental to it.

This is one of the most brilliant posts ever made on nairaland.

What kind of foolish and heartless reply did you just post? The question is where are human beings when such things are happening?

logicboy01: God doesnt care. He doesn care that people are being sold as sex slaves. Do you know how soul-shattering it is to be a sex slave?


Does this picture touch your soul? Where is God for the starving children in Africa;

[img]http://tcdh.files./2011/09/vulture_waiting_for_the_child_to_die.jpg[/img]

And what are human beings doing about such?

Please look at this take on the nature of divine harmony/ justice -

https://www.nairaland.com/411142/definition-divine-harmony-understanding-creation

Martian: You, outwit who? Maybe the people around you and the siblings you mesmerize with your word play who can't quite tell you how ridiculous your ideas are because they hold similar inanities as worldviews. . There is no contradiction about ideas and thoughts existing as products of processes in a physical brain. I already used anencephaly as an example and you didn't have anything to say but ask questions about the cerebrum and cerebellum. The other readers who agree with you are mostly theists so that's no skin off my back because they already believe in a variation of your silly superstitous ignorant clap trap.

Now, you describe your "non physical" world where ideas and thoughts exist independent of brains. Try not to be inchoate, but that's impossible, isn't it?

It is ok for me, and I am satisfied with the position being that you - an adamant materialist, admit the existence of non material things, even if you say they come from physical things.

the siblings you mesmerize with your word play who can't quite tell you how ridiculous your ideas are because they hold similar inanities as worldviews. .

I have mentioned in passing a number of times that my siblings are pentecostal and that i do debate with them, but this is no reason for you to begin to take swipes at people you do not know or even interact with in any form. That's very unsporting and most ungentlemanly. Thank you very much.

In premise 3, you make an assertion - namely that the universe cannot be self contained.
Essentially you are asking that we accept your assertion that the universe cannot be self contained over the assertion that the universe can be self contained. There is no proof for either assumption, but there is no particular reason to accept your assumption over the other one.

I don't recalled ever using the term "self-contained". I have rather always said that the universe being material/ physical cannot be self existent: as such would defy basic logically on mutable things being self-existent. Any thing mutable cannot be self existent.

Well "self-existence" may "connote" immutability to you (this seems to be an assertion, but I don't think there would be a point arguing about this as it probably won't be relevant), but I don't think one can prove that a "self-existent" thing cannot be physical just because of how you have decided to define physical things.

It is not based on my definition alone: it is a self evident fact of reality. What do you understand by something that is said to be self-existent?

Well,

1) there really is no evidence that the "energized bubble" (the universe) exists in an "infinite void".

Can you tell me in that case into WHAT it is expanding?

2) there is no explanation given for why this infinite void described above would have to be "self existent".

What would exist, into which the material expanding from the big ba.ng would expand into?

If I may even say, how can such a space be understood to be finite, divided or limited?

The arguments for why a "self-existent" thing "can not but exist" that were made earlier are either circular or just a series of tautologies.

This would apply also to a self-existent universe, or a self existent singularity.

In case you doubt this, please attempt this question -

Wherefore, why and how, did the singularity exist in the first place?

You see, once you attempt this question, you will recognize immediately the philosophical conundrum THAT FOR ANYTHING TO EXIST AT ALL: SOMETHING OR THE OTHER MUST BE SELF-EXISTENT.

I reject matter as self-existent because of it's obvious mutability.

This would only mean that that which must be self-existent can only be immaterial.

4) the infinite void described here is the kind of blank empty space I was advising in my previous post to avoid when trying to imagine real nothingness/non-existence. This infinite void in your example has qualities and specifically it has spatial characteristics - it can contain things and you've even given it a specific size - which means it's quite a different thing from real nothingness.

Real nothingness, by its very definition, does not exist.
Yes, the infinite void is NOT nothing, but please note that at no point did I ascribe a size to such a void.

5) why do you limit it to one void? Why not construct an infinite number of voids containing other voids? Since there are degrees of infinity, different voids could have a different extent from one another. But if one were to accept that this infinite void containing an energized bubble existed, what justification could you give to rule out an unending series of other infinite continua containing smaller infinite voids? I think maybe you might have avoided this for purely aesthetic reasons.

Are voids divisible?

Are intangible things divisible?

6) Time cannot be defined without reference to some thing because of the relativity of simultaneity:

You mean to say events and not time per se.

"Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event." - A. Einstein, Ch. 9: "The Relativity of Simultaneity" from Relativity: The Special and General Theory

I hope you realize that this knocks off both your position and that of thehomer completely.
It simply implies that every reference body must have its own timeline: and as such we cannot claim that there was no time prior to the big ban.g, given that we refer to a body existing prior: the self same singularity.

The part in bold is the most important thing and once you understand it, you'll understand that the kind of time you and justcool are trying to impose onto reality is not real.

As a matter of fact, the sort of time being propounded by yourself and current scientific notions, has nothing whatever to do with time.
And this is obvious from the unshakeable contradictions inherent therein.

PhysicsQED: I have no problem with the references to past posts.

Many thanks for that. I genuinely appreciate your patience and deliberation in going through the posts and setting out your responses clearly.

Just to be clear, the singularity is the only object under discussion. The "big b.ang" is not a thing, but a descriptive term used to label a series of events.

This is not in dispute.

Spacetime originated with the singularity.

Please tell me what exactly this statement means, for I don not understand it.

Does it mean -

1. The singularity is itself spacetime - and such expanded in the initial expansion called the big b.ang.

2. Spacetime is the inflation that took place originating from the singularity but not synonymous with the singularity.

3. Spacetime is an incorporeal element tangential to the expansion of the singularity.

In answering these questions i would like you to bear these further questions at the back of your mind -

[x] Does Time (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in any way whatsoever

[y] Does space (as distinct from OR the same as the universe - you tell me) expand in anyway whatsoever

2. The singularity expanded, then underwent inflation, and that process is described as the big ba[i]n[/i]g. It would be better not to use obfuscating term "pre-b.ang singularity" as if the singularity is not the starting point of the big b[i]a[/i]ng or as if they are really separate from one another when one is actually subsumed within the other.

As you yourself pointed out, the singularity was a concentrated point of unified mass and energy: the ba.ng was an event - the expansion of said singularity. It is important to maintain this distinction because of the very nature of the questions being asked here: to wit: [x] Why the expansion? [y]Why the expansion at that point and not prior of after? [z] Wherefore the singularity in the first place? [zz] Why did it not eternally remain in its primordial singular state? What was the impetus for expansion?

Asking these questions go to the root of the matter and show exactly why we must make the subtle distinction between the state of the singularity, and the initiations of the (or it's) expansion.

The connection between the singularity - an object of zero size in all spatial dimensions, infinite temperature, and infinite density - and the beginning of time, is that spacetime began with the singularity.

Please sir, I am not sure that this statement has any cognitive meaning.

If indeed space "began" with the singularity, I ask the eternal question yet again - into what is space expanding?

Is space something that can "begin?"

And in light of the foregoing, how can it be said with any measure of coherence that time either, "expands" - or much less expands from matter?

If neither of the foregoing is coherent, how is it coherent to say that spacetime commenced - at all - much less with matter.

In all of this I need to yet point out the central fact that so long as you say that the singularity existed prior to the event of its expansion, then you cannot also say that there was no time prior to the big bang

For if there wasn't then in what state did the singularity exist - for, as conceived by those discussants, nothing could exist outside a timeline.

Your reasoning here is faulty.

First you define physical things as those that "exist in space and time."

Then you use your definition of physical to preclude the singularity from existing by defining the singularity as something that has to exist in space and time, in order to create an apparent contradiction.

If you read the thread in reference you will see that it is not me who made this insistence or created this contradiction.

But space and time only came with the singularity to begin with so there is not a question of some sort of pre-existing space and time here in which the singularity emerged.

If space and time did not already exist with the so called singularity, then in what context could it have existed ab initio
? As such it is and remains wrong for you to say that space and time only came with the singularity - for if this is the case you will have to answer the eternal question - into WHAT is the said spacetime expanding?

Be right back.

^^^ E tire me o. We had a great laugh about those antics in my office.

logicboy01: I actually like you Deepsight! You hardly back down from arguments and this makes my intellectual pwnage of you even more worth it.

We both know what atheism means. You are trying your best to avoid a fact. [size=18pt]Answer the question; Are achristians not atheists towards other Gods like Zeus, Thor, Allah or Shiva? Yes or No [/size]

*Sigh* He still missed the bolded AND underlined words, which were bolded and underlined just to help him.

Ode. You keep debunking yourself;
1) Russia is not in the European union neither is Turkey or Macedonia
2) Not all European countries are in the EU
3) Morrocans need visa to be in the EU.

How does all of this put Israel in Europe?

YOU were the one you said Israel is in Europe. In the thread where you said it, it was glaring you actually thougyt it was in Europe. When other posters corrected you, you tried to duck by saying its "politically" in Europe. Now, I am asking you - what does it mean to be politically in Europe? E.U membership would rank as central, no?

Can you please show me in what respect Israel is in Europe, and exactly why so?

I cant even believe I am having this conversation.

You are a comic.

And I must be a jobless man.

Martian: Anyway, lmao at MY ideas being contradictory!!! They contradict yours but they don't contradict the world we inhabit.

Forget about my ideas: this is about YOUR ideas.

They are indeed manifestly contradictory.

1. You insist that only physical things exist.

2. You accept that ideas and thoughts exist.

3. You say that ideas and thoughts are not physical things.

Inescapable contradiction. How do ideas and thoughts - which you say are NOT physical - exist - and yet you say that ONLY physical things exist. Lol.

If you were wise, now would be the time to simple appear intelligent by acceding the obvious.

Bro, its a wrap. No escape.

You see, I don't expect you to accept the obvious. Adamant people never concede the obvious when outwitted. They just stick to their illogical guns and thereby appear even more illogical. However my prize is not your concession. My prize is that other readers can see the contradiction clearly, even if you deny it from now till dooms day.

logicboy01: lolololololololol. Strawman alert. Why are you mentioning Isreal? Why cant you refute the point I made that; christians are atheists towards other Gods like thor , Allah or Zeus?

Please school up.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists

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

I never thought the day would come when I would have to post something so elementary.

Upon your arrival on this forum, I warned you to pause, slow down and think before posting. I warned you that unnecessary exuberance will lead to st[b]u[/b]pidity. This has come to pass.

O, and please, in case you don't get the import of the text in red above, please focus on the underlined and bolded words. I needed to highlight them for you, otherwise they would surely have escaped you.

For your information, Isreal is politically in Europe. You wouldnt know that being who you are. A willfully ignorant person

Okay? Such as being a member of the European Union? Is Israel a member of the European Union? That would be politically being in Europe no?

Rather than look to that, you made your argument from the champions league and trade agreements. Do you know how many trade agreements and even immigration agreements Morocco has with Europe? Morocco even once applied to join the E.U. Is Morocco in Europe?

Olodo.

cyrexx: @tobechi and
@ deepsight
you still dont get it



my post is clearly self explanatory of exactly what i meant.

O, i get that, I have argued same many times: that there is just enough reason to reject say, Yahweh, as there is to reject Allah.

However the banner which says that we are all atheists for disbelieving in other gods is simply a falsity. If you did not mean it, others, such as logicboy, have taken it seriously. Which is just d.aft.

Martian: "son".

Get over this already.

Saying they are not physical has nothing to do with your "non physicsal" ideas.

They don't have to have anything to do with my ideas. It is sufficient that they show that YOUR ideas are contradictory and inchoate.

logicboy01: Epic fail.

Christians are technically atheist.

And you are technically illiterate.

You add to the list of your illiterate statements: such as your statement that Israel is in Europe.

Enigma: I feel guilty and that I should provide some assistance. Think 'wordplay' and replace "genuine [b]p[/b]article" in my original post with "real mccoy" and hopefully you will get me then.

O, stop being so enigmatic!

Martian: Take your "self existent", "non physical", "inherently" existing idea of god somewhere else but you are welcome to describe your "non physical" dimension.
i ddn't agree with your "non physical" things. All I said was that ideas and thoughts are products of physical processes in the brain.

O, i edited my post above to include your full statement.

It still speaks for itself.

You have still admitted that non physical things exist.

Thanks.

^^^^ The same materialist Martian who has admitted of recent that non-physical things exist - saying only that the non physical things are products of physical things.

https://www.nairaland.com/972251/understanding-religious-delusion/3#11287413

logicboy01: Your quote supports the point that the bible was saying that the earth was a flat circle.

Jesus Christ. Where did you learn to read? Don't you think you need a refund of school fees from that institution?

cyrexx: I submit to you that each and everyone of us are atheists. Yes, its true and I will show you.

I just believe in ONLY ONE LESS GOD than you do. We both disbelieved the same number of many other Gods, I only exceeded you by just a single one of them.

Well I score you zero out of a hundred for the simple reason that atheism is defined as a disbelief in the existence of ANY and ALL GODS OR GOD.

As such, any person who believes in any god or GOD at all is not an atheist.

Frankly I had grown accustomed to higher quality posts from you than this one.