I'm surprised that in this day and age, people can make posts like this full of basic fallacies and stereotypes, and no one bats an eye. Probably has to do with Nigeria's patriarchal society.

Armaggedon:
It's a man's decision to make how he expresses love for his family and not in woman's place to judge.

A woman has every right to judge how a man treats her and her family, especially if he is abusive or neglectful. Love isn't a participation trophy. It's a two-way street paved with kindness, open communication, and the understanding that abuse and neglect are major potholes no relationship should drive through.

A responsible man is a man that plays his role and fulfils his obligation to his family and not a man without ego. Every man has ego and pride while every woman crave for care and attention.

You are making a sweeping generalization that assumes that all men have the same personality traits and needs, just as all women do. Stereotypes aren't entirely justified, you know. You also imply that gender roles and obligation are fixed and predetermined -- which is a sexist and outdated view that ignores the diversity and complexity of the human species. A responsible man is a man that respects his partner and his family, and does not let his ego and pride get in the way of their happiness and well-being. A responsible woman is a woman that does the same. Every person, regardless of gender, has ego and pride, as well as care and attention. These are not mutually exclusive or incompatible.

In most cases of domestic violence (not all) it's provocation by women that cause it. If you provoke a man to act violently on you and you expect to blackmail him with "maturity" or "responsibility" you are not helping yourself since you both are most likely going to reconcile. Even if you decide to abandon the marriage, you are not leaving intact, and he has far better chances of remarry than you. Who lost.

This is a classic example of victim-blaming, which is a form of psychological abuse that shifts the blame from the perpetrator to the victim. It also uses fear, guilt, and shame to manipulate the victim into staying in the abusive relationship. There is absolutely no justification for domestic violence, and no one deserves to be abused. Provocation is not a valid excuse, and maturity and responsibility are not blackmail. They are the minimum requirements for a healthy and respectful relationship.

What's the point of exchanging words since you can simply keep quiet and save your children from watching scenes of violence. This is the point the minister is making.

It's true that exchanging words in a heated environment may easily escalate issues, but you can't use that context to justify a complete lack of communication in a relationship. In any conflict, both parties should be able to express their feelings, thoughts, and needs, and to resolve conflicts peacefully and constructively. Silence is not a solution, it is a symptom of fear and oppression. You are falsely equating verbal communication with physical violence, while suggesting that the victim is responsible for preventing the violence by remaining silent. How is this not gaslighting? Aren't you denying the victim's voice and reality?

Use of seemingly hurtful words on wife doesn't indicate lack of love from husband. Even so, men will apologize in most cases when the rage is over.

I'm sorry, but this is the most ludicrous thing I've heard this month. Since when did husbands transcend the mortal realm to the point where their words and actions become unconditional and unquestionable? If a man or woman can't control their speech, then they simply lack respect, empathy, and compassion, which are essential components of love. If as a man, you find yourself in an emotionally abusive relationship where your wife doesn't listen to you and has no iota of respect for you, despite all your efforts, you can try letting go of your ego and approach her. Let her understand how she's making you feel, and if her lack of respect persists, then I don't see why you shouldn't prioritize your mental health, and leave that prison of a relationship.

Islie:


https://dailytrust.com/shut-up-during-argument-with-your-husbands-minister-warns-women/

Well, I don't agree with this piece. For one, I find the idea of silencing yourself to avoid conflict to be deeply concerning. That can not be a healthy solution in any relationship.

PoliteActivist:
*Continuing my response to moniker JessicaRabbit
(Always remember, I'm playing a TOTALLY unbiased umpire)

* I note your last response. Please note: I said you should tell religionists how come you know scientists better than scientists know themselves. You had it confused. Also tell them how trial and error led to the hymen, and the appendix, and the fact that things that taste good (fat, sugar, and salt) are not good for us!

Continuing (remember we are trying to determine which is better: being an atheist or being a religionist). Let's use something we are all sure doesn't exist: Father Christmas (FC)
I want you to honestly answer this question:
If a child were told (before he could reason logically) FC existed and he totally believed it. Then growing up he heard people always thank FC when something good happened, and always saying how great FC was, and he develops a deep faith that FC would grant his requests (which of course he does - power of belief), and he tries to be a decent person because he was taught that's what FC wants, plus it adds a whole new dimension to his social life.
Question: How does it benefit him to stop believing in FC? How is someone who never found FC better than him??
While at it also tell us how someone dying of cancer is better than someone with same cancer but whose cancer was being cured by a water pill (that he thought was a powerful cancer drug - power of the mind).
So, as you can see for yourself, no matter how you slice it, atheists are "poorer" than religionists no matter what.

Uhmm... are you really trying to compare Santa Claus to cancer treatment? 🤨 😂

The hypothetical child you described isn't experiencing genuine faith. He's experiencing indoctrination and confirmation bias. His positive experiences are solely attributed to a fictional being, hindering him from critically evaluating reality and exploring alternative explanations. True intellectual growth requires questioning, not blind acceptance. Regarding your claim that atheists are "poorer" than religious individuals, I find it so laughable that I'm not sure if it merits a proper response. There are countless examples of thriving atheists in every corner of the globe, leading fulfilling lives based on reason, compassion, and a deep appreciation for the natural world. Attributing moral character and personal fulfillment solely to religious belief is both simplistic and inaccurate. Your water pill analogy is a flawed attempt to equate the placebo effect with genuine medical treatment. While the placebo effect demonstrates the power of the mind, it doesn't magically cure illnesses. In contrast, science-based medicine provides actual treatments with verifiable efficacy, saving countless lives every day.

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.

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.

Blitzerz:

Copying clapbacks

Nobody reincarnates as dictionary....lmao...
Try to copy well.....

I have no need to copy clapbacks to banter with minions like you. You're overestimating your worth in this exchange. 🤣🤣🤣

obinna58:

You I suspect
Long time buddy 😭😭😭😭

I will tell you two facts for free

1) Yes, this is not a new account. I officially joined this forum circa 2019.

2) I don't know who you think it is behind this moniker, but I promise you that you don't have a clue.

LadyExcellency:


Stop this nonsense. Religion brought civilization and science. Atheism is the worst form of religion that doesn't come with social/human development nor support family bonds. It doesn't tolerate redemption and forgiveness.

It's like you were born yesterday. You were born into the traditional religion of your ancestors whether you like it or not.

Sorry, buttercup, but you're wrong on so many levels here. But for time, I could write an entire dissertation dismantling the trite arguments you posed here, but I will just address two of the points raised in this short riposte.

First of all, don't you guys ever get tired of calling atheism a "religion"? Atheism is the absence of belief in deities, not a belief system itself. It's like calling baldness a hairstyle. Additionally, you're sliding down a very slippery slope by making a dangerous generalization when you suggest that atheism lacks social/human development or family support. I don't know if you heard yourself well, but your statement there reads like the words of a prejudiced bigot. Plenty of atheists were and are exemplary members of their communities, fostering strong family bonds and contributing positively to society (Tai Solarin in Nigeria, for example).

I also like how you boldly stated that everyone was born into the traditional religion of his/her ancestors, completely disregarding the concept of individual agency and the right to question and choose one's beliefs. You are the one who's naive here, and blind to the facts of reality.

obinna58:

Is this billynaira an old forgotten account?

Who the F is that? 😒

DevilsEqual:



Hello Ma, I don tire to dey write epistles and I am only replying this cause u think i really do not know about Stoicism or Epicureanism

I belonged to the latter school of thought before i realised the former has an answer to everything...Recently done reading 'Meditations' by Marcus Aurelius and I have read Seneca's Letter to a stoic, even one of his first book titled ' On the shortness of life'


I currently follow a stoic on Youtube by the name Ryan Holiday and i have read all about Discourses of Epicetus

As for Epicurus, I know almost everything availabe to know about him(Everyone knows about that God Paradox)

I also read extensively on Cynism and know alot about Diogenes of Sinope

Thats to put aside the most popular Socrates, Aristotle and Plato

I was once a Buddhist and i still follow all his 8 most important tenets till date

I am saying all this to let u know how much i dedicated my lifr to knowing all about Religion,science and Philosophy and when i talk or write, its actually cause I struggle to find a convincing answer to the big question 'How and why we are here', and the answers, as opined by other fields of knowledge sounded rather more foolish than even what Religion suggested(even with the inconsistencies and unverifiable bogus claims by those Religious books), hence my reason for continued search

I wish i could address your other points but its damn too hard to type abeg


Reading your comments is intimidating...guess the reason u were able to force others in the past to accept your view is cause your use of grammar makes u look like the most enlightened person....

Not about the points u make cause I still struggle to believe anyone would choose Art over Science when it comes to seeking for the truth about anything...Science gives room for criticism, counter argument and verification of claims. We cant say same for Art/Music

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.

Blitzerz:

Rest my dear....
Maybe in your next life you will get parents who arent religious....
So we wont get your adulthood tantrums on all christian posts..... 😘

Dude, nothing says "adulthood tantrums" than making personal attacks over a harmless joke. Get yourself a mirror, will ya? 🤡

Perhaps in your next life, you'll be reincarnated as a dictionary, so you can finally understand the difference between a "tantrum" and a "well-reasoned criticism". 😂😂

But don't worry, I'll be praying for you. 😘

haybhi1:

Ehh Jesse, don't mind him. Don't be perturbed. No one here has to make you worry over a thing, ... except me maybe🙂 .

Phew, but even you sef ehn, you're hardheaded o, new girl on the block wey dey step on plenty people toes bayi. Omo, NLders no get chills too o. Anyway, you can call on me if they get too much handle... I dey your back 💯, iwo ma phor, na only exams fit make me tarry.😕

Btw, your line of thoughts on here, the pattern suggests we have some things in common... you like science, I adore it; you're logical, I get grounded for it; you're a critical thinker, I'm an effing realist; you're sweet (through your reasoning), I'm a keen admirer; you sound like a universal truth seeker, we'll do it together... kilotunfe gangan? Iwo omoyi, come make we connect na...

Omo, JessicaRabbit, me I stan you gan o, Ajeh. Aye nfo fun e gan...

LOL. Well, thanks for the compliments and for making me laugh this morning. 🙂

PoliteActivist:


Moniker JessicaRabbit I was just being facetious saying you could be Seun... but it was getting a bit ridiculous, all those bans. Maybe you have a point - I'd start posting a little at a time.

No worries, dude. I just felt you were being overly dramatic with your assumptions.

Posting less might be helpful, or splitting your post into numerous parts. Either way, you have to be careful. I've had plenty frustrations with this site's anti spambot. In fact, it's one of the reasons I spawned with this new moniker.

Blitzerz:

Eiya
You call those infantile tantrums of yours "reasoned arguments"?

Get up from that long thing

Hey, it's not my fault that you failed to see the actual point of my post, and chose to have an emotional breakdown instead. Perhaps you should pray for thicker skin, along with some reading comprehension skills. 😘

basilico:


I thought you are new here.

Have you seen me elsewhere suggesting otherwise?

What does this have to do with topic?

LOL.

basilico:


Do you think fani Willis is under some blackmail from Biden WH? Her deputy looks too qualified to be operating at county level.
Fani was also obese at one tine. Do your u think her weight lioss clouds her judgement?

Take a second look at the post you quoted and read your response again. Are you losing it? What does this reply have to do with what I posted? You just can't help yourself, can you? Honest question, and with no offense, but I'm genuinely curious: do you suffer from A.D.H.D?

Bayajjidda:


At least I have delivered the message. Suit yourself. Bye.

Don't worry, I won't lose any sleep over you storming off like a crusader who stubbed his toe on logic. 😉

bemeruca:


Sick people with insurance should make use of it. You are so sick you thought insurance for opinions exist.

Seek the help you need. You are really sick.

Oh dear, did my sarcasm give you an allergic reaction? Maybe you do need help after all, with deciphering humor. Tsk tsk.

PoliteActivist:


((You and FRANCISTOWN, please help me forward this below to JessicaRabbit, whom I'm beginning to suspect could actually be Seun! I get banned each time I quote "her". If I don't get banned for posting this I'll post more))

*Politeness*
(Always remember, I'm playing devil's advocate for both sides. Each side thinks I'm against them!)

Thanks for your rather patronizing response.
Au contraire, religionists would say evolution is pure magic. Consider: in, say, a million years, kazam! Monkeys would have evolved to humans? Isnt that definition of pure magic? Never mind they've stayed exactly monkeys for as long as man can remember!

Soo, trial and error did it all, eh? Trial and error is what makes mathematics aligne so perfectly with nature? It is like saying that by trial and error the universe can produce a delicious meal served on a table! But, OK o, what do I know!
The thing is, you don't know the science that you have so much faith in. People who know science very well have told you that science knows almost nothing. You patronizingly dismiss Einstein as "charmingly inaccurate". Same Einstein that came up with ideas that revolutionized our perception of our universe, ideas most of us still can't quite grasp - just by sitting in his study and conducting thought experiments, with no equipments whatsoever. He himself described himself as knowing almost nothing. And not only him, Newton, Socrates, and others came to the same conclusion - that they know almost nothing. But to you science has all the answers, yet the very best of scientists say they know almost nothing. So, please explain to our religionist friends how you know them better than they know themselvs!

If you're quoting me and getting the boot, maybe the issue lies in how you're quoting and not the quotes themselves. Are you bombarding your post with too many links? Are you plagiarizing copious amounts of texts from other websites? You should look into these things. What I find totally ridiculous and absurd is your suggestion that my account belongs to Mr. Seun Osewa simply because you're having difficulties making a response to me, and I think this is a massive pointer to the possibility that you're NOT a critical thinker. And it already makes me wary of continuing this conversation with you because you could be having ulterior motives here. I've been banned on this website before, just so you know (look at my post history). Have you asked yourself what possible justification I would have for blocking your posts?

Also, and don't take this personally, but I find it weird how you keep alluding to "politeness" as if repeating the word will magically make all of your posts appear reasonable. You don't have to keep telling us you're polite. Your conduct in the discussion will tell us all we need to know about your composure in debate, as well as your intellectual honesty.

Now, coming to the main subject matter. While I might find it a bit ridiculous, I can somehow relate to your mischaracterization of evolution as "magic". It's understandable, as complex processes often appear magical to those unfamiliar with the details. But instead of magic, imagine evolution as a chef patiently refining a recipe over countless generations. Each iteration builds upon the last, slowly but surely leading to new and diverse forms, not monkeys suddenly poof-ing into humans overnight. Millions of years may seem like a long time, but in the grand scheme of the universe, it's merely a blink. You're right that trial and error doesn't sound very glamorous. But don't underestimate its power! It's the very foundation of natural selection, where countless variations arise, and only the most beneficial traits survive and propagate. This elegant process has sculpted not only the intricate mechanisms of life but also the fundamental laws that govern our universe, like the perfect alignment of math and nature. It's not a "delicious meal on a table," but a testament to the remarkable self-organizing power of the universe. For the avoidance of doubt, science doesn't claim to have all the answers. In fact, acknowledging the unknown is a core principle of the scientific method. That's why scientists like Einstein and Newton constantly pushed the boundaries of knowledge, always searching for deeper understanding. While their own humility is admirable, to say they knew "almost nothing" ignores the vast body of knowledge accumulated through centuries of scientific inquiry. We don't claim omniscience, but we do have a reliable method for uncovering the secrets of the universe, and that's the power of evidence-based exploration.

Playing devil's advocate is actually something I do once in a while as well, if you knew me well. I'm never rigid with my perspectives either. However, I do believe that in all things, it's important to remain grounded in evidence and avoid misrepresenting scientific concepts. I don't claim to know religionists better than they know themselves. But if they were genuinely curious about understanding the universe, they would explore reliable sources, and engage in respectful dialogue, instead of the mindless trolling and presuppositions many of them seem to engage in on this forum for example.

DevilsEqual:



Firstly, I am sorry for that very statement of "Lies" and "delusion", I didnt mean to be disrespectful to u

Secondly, I noticed u already had the belief that Christians are usually arrogant and not openminded enough when having this kinda convo with an atheist and that surely reflects in how u keep talking about thing i never ever mentioned in my comments, It is u who isnt careful enough to respond to contents of my texts but instead choose to address me the way u would address the past xtians u have had this kinda convo with



U really do not know if i am a xtian but u keep being skeptical about most of the things i wrote..
The oldest book in history is the "Epic of Gilgamesh", and it was written just 1987 year before the first book of the bible, which is Genensis(written in 1513BCE). I used Bible here as reference cause its the oldest known popular book but u were surprised i said i used it to track ancient civilization but instead assumed I'm a xtian...Fallacy of hasty generalization


Again, seeking for the truth about our existence via music,art and the other things u listed there arent a valid way to go about that as most of these things are based on some opinions of individual, they are hard to be countered by logic and cant even be tested over time, hence my choice of religon, science and philosophy which not only have a universal acceptance but is wide open to scrutiny and criticism by people of diverse knowledge, some can even be tested over time and this will be the best tools to use in my seeking of truth

Also, the first comment of mine u quoted was about the diverse books i read in my bid to know the "How" of everything and my conclusion about the whole thing was what brought us here...I am saying this as a guy who has not only read extensively on ancient Greek and Roman Philosophy but also as one who had to delve deeply in religion and science to know the truth

Funny how u still think my decision not to base my conclusion on ancient historians who wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes, but on scientific methodologies on the exploration of Life in earth by few of the finest scientist mankind has ever had is an incorrect decision

U can choose whatever way to seek your truth, but I, wiil always go for the trio of Religion, science and philosophy

Your English dey intimidate me sef...I con dey write like pry1 pikin...Abeg just take am easy

While I understand your perspective, I wouldn't say I hold a pre-existing belief about Christians being universally arrogant. However, it's undeniable that certain historical figures and contemporary individuals within the Christian faith have displayed such attitudes, which unfortunately colors how some atheists engage in these discussions. Generally, I just strive to approach each conversation on its own merit, regardless of the other person's religious background. I've encountered many types of apologists in the past, both rational and irrational. Concerning your points about the burden of proof and the pursuit of truth, I stand by my previous statements. The extraordinary claim of a god's existence necessitates compelling evidence, which is independent of whether or not someone chooses to question the status quo. Additionally, the path to knowledge and meaning isn't limited to a specific combination of disciplines. Each individual has the freedom and agency to explore truth through various avenues, as long as critical thinking and open-mindedness are guiding principles. That being said, I duly apologize if I have misrepresented your beliefs. For the avoidance of doubt, my aim is not to force my views upon you. Ultimately, whichever belief(s) you choose to lend credence to is none of my business. I'm only here to address erroneous ideas about atheism and what it encapsulates. I'm just trying to simulate an interesting discussion with respect for facts. We don't have to agree on everything. I believe we can still have a productive dialogue if we approach it with respect, active listening, and a willingness to consider different viewpoints.

I would like to point out the fact that your allusion to the Epic of Gilgamesh as the "oldest book" is an anachronistic fallacy. The text is undeniably ancient, yes. But it was not written "just 1987 years" before the first book of the Bible. There's a significant difference between 1987 years and approximately 3,500 years, which is the estimated age of the earliest fragments of the Epic of Gilgamesh. Perhaps you meant to say it predates Genesis by closer to 2,000 years? Although, even then, attributing "oldest book" status to either is debatable, considering the existence of even older written records like the clay tablets of Mesopotamia. I appreciate your reference to the Bible as a historical source, but it's crucial to remember that confirmation bias can be a pitfall for anyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I've already told you this. The Bible is, of course, a valuable resource for understanding ancient cultures and societies, but just like any historical document, it requires critical analysis and corroboration with other sources to ensure a complete and objective understanding.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion that other forms of exploration besides science, philosophy and religion are inherently "invalid." Even within the seemingly objective realm of science, interpretations and paradigms shift based on new discoveries. Likewise, the universality of religious beliefs is debatable, considering the vast array of faiths and interpretations across the globe. The pursuit of meaning is a deeply personal journey. While logic and testability are valuable tools in specific fields, they might not always lead to individual fulfillment or existential meaning. Art, music, and other forms of expression can offer unique insights, emotional connection, and a sense of purpose that might not be readily quantifiable or universally validated.

Trying to know the "how of everything" is a rather ambitious goal, wouldn't you say? While your diverse reading is commendable, claiming you've grasped the entirety of knowledge in such vast fields is a tad bit...excessive. Your reference to ancient Greek and Roman philosophy is intriguing. Did you delve into the works of the Epicureans, who questioned the existence of gods and emphasized living a virtuous life based on reason and pleasure? Or perhaps the Stoics, who focused on accepting what we cannot control and living virtuously? Your approach seems to aim more for a pre-determined conclusion rather than a genuine quest for understanding. Claiming to know the "truth" based on reading within specific frameworks raises concerns about confirmation bias (notice how many times I've cited this term for you!)

You also committed an appeal to authority fallacy by implying that scientific advancements by a select few somehow invalidate the collective wisdom of countless ancient historians. While I respect the achievements of these esteemed scientists, dismissing historical accounts entirely paints a dangerously incomplete picture. Remember, science itself relies heavily on historical data and context. Carbon dating wouldn't be possible without historical understanding of radioactive decay, for instance. Also, the claim that ancient historians "wrote also on things they never saw with their own eyes" applies to all historical accounts, not just those you disagree with. How can you be so certain that your chosen interpretation of the Bible, compiled and translated countless times over millennia, is free from bias or misinterpretation?

I'll conclude by painting a picture for you. Imagine a vast landscape we're trying to understand. Science provides the map, religion offers a specific interpretation of the landmark features, and philosophy explores the philosophical implications of the landscape. But just as valuable can be the artist sketching the emotional resonance of the scenery, or the musician capturing its atmosphere through sound. Each perspective adds richness and depth to our overall understanding. I would encourage you to consider a more open-minded approach. Explore these various fields without pre-existing expectations. Embrace the inherent uncertainties and the joy of discovery that comes from continuous learning.

Blitzerz:


Your pain is that your religious parents didnt allow u to fornicate as u like, while growing up.....

Throwing u into these tantrums that surface evry other time.....

I feel your pain my dear....

The classic Freudian armchair analysis from someone who confuses reasoned arguments with emotional outbursts. Must be all that "divine" wisdom foolishness clouding your ability to see the difference. 🤭🤭

basilico:


You didn't accuse him if lying based on the evidence provided.
You have a mission to confuse us with your lies.
You demand impossible proof
or evidence when it comes to Fani. When it comes to Trump
She told two witnesses who also can't remember the year. You want to link that to trauma of a rape victim , hello affecting three people? After Lewinsky affair, I doubt anyone would fail to note dates and time and moreso the year.

You lied she had DNA proof. DNA can be planted Her backers and financiers are influential people including DOJ. What entity tested the DNA found on her dress by the way? FBI labs?

She had a photo as proof. Trump has a quadrillion photos taken with women.

Her purported rape mirrors a TV episode she watched. Did she purposely decide the venue of the rape as it was next to Trump's hotel?
Don't forget she was a fan of the Apprentice show.
I stand unconvinced , I disregard everything you write as a purposeful attempt to hoodwink.You will not drag me down into the holes you are dug in.

Look at you flailing about, spouting irrelevant rubbish. Like I said, you're losing yourself in this argument. You have no more ammo. Carroll's lawyers have sought Trump's DNA for three years to compare it with stains found on the dress Carroll wore the day she says Trump raped her in a department store dressing room. Analysis of DNA on the dress concluded it did contain traces of an unknown man's DNA. Trump refused to provide a DNA sample until a federal judge ordered him to do so in 2020. What was Trump running from for three freaking years? I'd like to know, please. And how can you claim that DNA can be planted and that Carroll's backers and financiers are influential people, including the Department of Justice? Who are these mysterious backers and financiers? How did they plant DNA on Carroll's dress without her knowing? Why would the DOJ, which was under Trump's control for most of his presidency, be involved in a plot to frame him? You are making wild accusations without any proof, just like Trump himself. As for the photo, I've already told you that the one Carroll has is not proof of rape. It is proof that Trump knew her, contrary to his claim that he never met her.

I see you brought back the reality show conspiracy theory again. You really have no tangible objections to the case ruling, do you? LOL.

basilico:


With regards to Deutsche Bank and DC post office, you said he lied about his net worth to obtain the loan. So he had to disgorge his engorged profits. The bank that lent him was proud of their relationships. Two of their very senior employees testified unambiguously.
About DC hotel, why you said he lied and fraudulently obtained loan? Why you think we can't read what you wrote?. Why you think my opinion was built from one article only? I let it stand hoping you would edit your lies.
Either you know are lying, which I believe you do.
Or you are just a polite Obrigardo like 🦜 parrot.
I brought up Buzzfeed article because it is part of Anti Trump media. The others you mentioned NYT, Wapo, etc are just far left ragtag bunch of liars all working in conjunction. Obama spinmaster Ben Rhodes called those rags an echo chamber. He directed them how to report, what keywords to use while he served at the WH. You are an unwitting victim.Every single day he would circulate talking points to media. He said thus.
"Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing,”

I asked you for a single credible factual source.

Please, let's not pretend like you have any interest in the truth, because you clearly don't. You are the one repeating the same baseless accusations and ad hominem attacks that have been debunked by the court and the media. Judge Engoron ordered Trump to disgorge the profit he made from the sale of the Old Post Office in Washington, D.C., which he had converted into a hotel, because he had inflated its value by a humongous amount in his financial statements. I admit I probably should have clarified that the amount was not directly related to the amount of money he borrowed, but to the amount of money he gained from his fraud, but then again, that's still beyond the point here -- that Trump fraudulently inflated the values of his assets. As for Deutsche Bank, they sued Trump for defaulting on the loan and Trump countersued them and alleged that they caused the 2008 financial crisis. How is that a proud relationship?

The simple reason you brought up the Buzzfeed article is because you were actually hoping to distract me from the main issue. But your pathetic attempt backfired, because you failed to address the substance of the evidence that shows Trump's fraudulent behavior. Instead, you resorted to ad hominem attacks and conspiracy theories, accusing the media of being part of a coordinated effort to smear Trump and his cronies. Your attempt to cast doubt on the credibility of the sources I cited by calling them "far left ragtag bunch of liars" is dead on arrival, because those sources are some of the most respected and reputable news outlets in the world, with a long history of journalistic excellence and integrity. They have won numerous awards and accolades for their reporting, including Pulitzer Prizes, Peabody Awards, and National Magazine Awards, and they have also exposed countless cases of corruption, abuse of power, and human rights violations, both at home and abroad, often at great risk to their own safety and reputation. How very stupid of you to suggest they are propaganda websites because they dare to question the actions of your divine overlord Trump. Like I said, you have no regard for the truth or the facts, you just blindly follow the cult of personality that is Trump and his enablers.

Moving on to the latest gaffe in your series of misfortunes in this debate, you decided to quote Ben Rhodes admitting to wilfully deceiving the media, thinking that this somehow proves your point, but it actually does the opposite. Since you're pathologically dishonest, you decided to leave out the context in which he made his statement, and twist it to suit your foolish narrative. But don't worry, I've taken the liberty to highlight his full quote, as you'll see in the screenshot below from a New York Times article. I had to read that article from start to finish. Rhodes was talking about foreign policy, not general media strategy. He was not directing the media how to report on everything, but rather providing them with information and access to experts who could explain the rationale and benefits of the deal, making a persuasive case for a diplomatic solution to a complex and contentious problem. Furthermore, Rhodes was not the only one who supported the Iran deal. The deal was endorsed by many other countries, including the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China, as well as the UN Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency. It was also backed by a majority of Americans, according to polls, and by many former and current officials, diplomats, and experts, from both parties, who saw it as the best option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

His quote acknowledged the reality of the changing media landscape, where many outlets have reduced their foreign coverage and rely on Washington-based reporters who may not have the expertise or experience to cover complex global issues. When he says that they "literally know nothing", he is suggesting that they may not have the depth or breadth of knowledge that previous generations of reporters had, and so he and his team try to provide them with the resources and contacts they needed.

You must one of those people who think that the media is a monolithic entity that is controlled by a shadowy cabal of leftists, globalists, and deep staters, who are hell-bent on destroying Trump and America. How quaint, and utterly delusional. You have no clue how journalism works, how diverse and competitive the media landscape is, how many checks and balances there are to ensure accuracy and accountability, and how many brave and dedicated reporters there are who risk their lives and reputations to expose the truth, no matter who is in power. You have no clue how to evaluate sources, how to verify facts, how to distinguish between opinion and analysis, and how to think critically and independently.

You and I both know you are quickly running out of ammo in this debate, and that's why you're flinging shit desperately at the wall, and hoping it sticks. You know that your position on this thread will tumble down if you address the facts directly instead of deflecting with irrelevant talking points and frivolous criticisms. You're a fraud, and you don't want to admit it.

Bayajjidda:


Wow! I must be a prophet to know that you're vertically challenged even without knowing you. Don't you think that this might be divinely inspired? I wanted to write, "Your hate for Christianity won't add a kobo to your account" but then something inside me directed me to write" Your hate for Christianity won't add a cubit to your height". I'm so sorry if I offended you by that, I don't mean to judge you or offend you, I only wanted to pass a message I was directed to pass. But don't you think that God loves you to direct me to speak to you? Jesus is standing at the door of your heart and knocking, why don't you open your heart to Him and let Him fill your heart and thirsty soul? Don't miss this chance, don't take this for granted. God bless you as you take this rare chance and make the best decision any man can make in life

Actually your "divine inspiration" might be suffering from low signals from heaven's Wi-Fi. Not only did you miss the mark on my height (by a considerable margin, I might add), but you also seem to have malfunctioned in understanding basic human emotions. I'm not "hating" on your religion, my friend. Disagreement is not the same as hate. Besides, if your God needs me to believe in him to be happy, then frankly, he sounds like he has some serious self-esteem issues I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot cross.

As for Jesus knocking on my heart's door? I'm afraid he'll just have to leave a message on the answering machine. I'm busy reading actual history books, not ancient fairytales. But thanks for the unsolicited life advice. I'll be sure to file it under "Interesting Things Strangers Say On The internet."

#BlessYourHeart
#LogicAndReasonFTW"

Blitzerz:

Stale 🥱

Tsk. Tsk. Is that all?

Perhaps your Holy Spirit forgot to help you download the "Comeback for Dummies" update. 😂

bemeruca:


i know but use the insurance and help yourself because you are sick.
if your insurance covers opinions then it is more reason why you have to seek help.

You seem to be stuck on repeat, like a broken record player skipping the "constructive criticism" track. Maybe it's time you invested in a new comeback and a self-awareness upgrade, because at this point, you're the one who needs help.

toujurs:
I'm still wondering who would settle for such a boring counterpart, as a lift partner.

Boring human, who lost touch of reality.

The way you keep using the word "introvert", I'm willing to bet that you don't even understand the actual meaning of introversion and extraversion.

Meanwhile, I would recommend you get a mirror. It might your alleviate your obvious need for external validation.

JuanDeDios:

Hmm. They don’t care about history. He/she just wants to live. Of course, society needs the groundbreakers, the outliers. Without this 1% of us, everything would stagnate-therein lies their value. Without them, the collective would suffer and everyone, including the comfort-zoners, would eventually wither since our very continuous survival as a species sometimes depends on our ability to master our environment.

So, no, I wasn’t dismissing the value of pioneering. I was just saying that we must recognize that at the individual level the average guy is fine just being average. And it’s he who truly enjoys life. A genius could never be content just living. He’s never even content in his pioneering ways because there’s always more to discover, to create, to change. There’s some nuclear engine inside him that fires him to be more. He finds his own living in constantly engaging, constantly discovering. Satisfaction is not for him. Happiness is elusive for him. His is a lonely path. That is why the world, with all its beauty and glory, belongs to the average people. The world belongs to the average people is not in terms of being remembered. It’s in terms of being HAPPY.

Happiness isn't exclusive though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it reads to me like you're suggesting that geniuses lack happiness, painting a picture of constant dissatisfaction for them. Of course, outliers might struggle with finding conventional happiness due to their intense drive, but assuming it is universal is quite unfair. Fulfillment and joy is subjective to the individual concerned, and many geniuses achieve this in their respective pursuits, contributing to a unique form of happiness. You used the words "average" and "contentment", but these ideas are practically spectrums. You can choose to acknowledge the comfort of familiarity and contentment within the mainstream, but it's important to remember that there are countless "average" people who yearn for something more, harbor dreams, and grapple with finding their place in the world. Suggesting the world "belongs to the average people because they are "happy" sounds like forcing a competition. Happiness isn't a zero-sum game. It isn't a limited resource, and recognizing diverse paths to fulfillment doesn't diminish anyone's experience.

Maxcollins042:


For your mind now this gibberish wey you yarn has some sense in it? LoL

Oh, it definitely makes more sense than whatever prompted you to ask that question.

DevilsEqual:



Just seeing this and by your first paragraph, it's clear that u have a superior use of English words, so trying to shame others for that isn't gonna add anything to u and it's actually needless
As long as I can try communicate in basic English, and since I do not have any interest whatsoever in being an Author, I guess I am good to go



Now, U mentioned one Indian philosopher and a few other Greeks,it's true that this guy's questioned Divinity but again, it's pointless diving into that topic, challenging the status quo, only to return with no proof to back up your challenges or even a very reasonable argument to cancel out the popular opinion.





Again, I'm not searching for any God,my question is to know how we get here and in answering that, I have to keep reading up on diff people's opinions, theories and counter theories of people who not only asked same questions in the past but also used some improved tools like fossil records and all to explore what might have been before our arrival, in a bid to know the true Genesis of all things


Telling me to discard that is very laughable...as my own reasoning, observations and knowledge would never open my mind to things that were, within and outside this universe and that would make me believe only my own lies guided by my very myopic opinion on humans evolution and that of our universe


If u care not about how we get here, that's fine, u can live your life anyway u want, believe your lies and enjoy your 100years on earth but every true seeker I have known have had to combine religion, science and philosophy and all would shed more light on things

I even use Bible to track the records of the earliest ever written book just to know how long ancient civilization started,not even because of the religious contents in it and No, I never mentioned divine intervention as an answer to anything or never stated where it is needed

While it might not have been your intention, I appreciate you acknowledging my writing style. I do strive to express myself clearly and concisely, but my aim isn't to "shame" others. If anything, I'm encouraged by well-reasoned arguments in a proper discussion. I agree that basic communication is vital, but dismissing entire historical movements like ancient atheism as "pointless" demonstrates a disregard for intellectual curiosity. Understanding philosophical discourse, even if we disagree with it, is crucial for informed discussion and personal growth.

Regarding your claim that questioning the status quo requires proof to "cancel out the popular opinion," I don't think that's a logical assessment. The burden of proof lies with those making extraordinary claims, not with those questioning them. The existence of gods, being an extraordinary claim, requires compelling evidence, not the absence of counter-proof. As for challenging the status quo, it's precisely this process that has led to incredible advancements throughout history. Progress often thrives on questioning established beliefs like challenging societal norms, and other anachronistic ideologies. Instead of dismissing alternative perspectives as pointless, why not engage in a genuine exchange? Perhaps you can share why the presence of gods is crucial to your worldview, and I can share my reasons for embracing a different perspective.

The beauty of intellectual exploration is about critically analyzing all existing knowledge and building upon it, not discarding them. Fossil records are fantastic tools, and science continues to leverage them alongside countless other resources like radiometric dating, genetic analysis, and cosmological observations to understand our origins. You have to realize that science is not in the business of providing absolute truths, but rather constantly evolving models based on new data and discoveries. It's a perpetual journey of refinement, not a destination with a singular answer. Maybe instead of seeking the ultimate "why," we can focus on the "how": How did the universe form? How did life emerge? How did we, as humans, evolve? These questions, while seemingly less grandiose, lead down fascinating paths that can unlock incredible insights into our place in the cosmos.

I think you're being highly disrespectful by asserting that my lack of belief is a "lie". Don't fool yourself into thinking you actually know anything about me. Your claim also reveals a serious misconception you seem to have. The simple reason I don't believe in gods is because of the lack of convincing evidence. Your hasty assumption here is synonymous with the typical Christian arrogance of presupposing the motives of atheists, without caring to ask them why they share their sentiments towards religion. Furthermore, the assertion that a "true seeker" must combine religion, science, and philosophy is a fallacy of the excluded middle. There are countless individuals who pursue knowledge and meaning through various avenues -- artists, musicians, historians, and yes, even atheists. Limiting the path to truth to a specific combination fosters division and hinders open-mindedness.

I find it odd that you admit to using the Bible solely for historical records, while neglecting its religious content, because it raises a lot of questions about confirmation bias. Are you only willing to accept historical information from the text that aligns with your pre-existing beliefs? Historians rely on a multitude of diverse sources to paint a complete picture, and the Bible needs to be critically analyzed within this context.

The earlier you realize that the world is far more nuanced than a simple binary of "religion" versus "atheism", the better for your intellectual growth and progress. The journey towards meaning is more valuable than reaching a pre-defined destination.

toujurs:
You are an introvert. A chronic one at that.

Mental psycho.

Thanks, Sherlock Holmes. I'm introverted and proud. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Mind if I borrow your magnifying glass to find your manners?

bemeruca:


Just seek the help you need. Use your insurance, get help.

My insurance covers a lot, but it doesn't cover irrelevant opinions from a clown standing in the peanut gallery.