KAG's Posts

Nairaland Forum › KAG's Profile › KAG's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (of 55 pages)

Christianity Etc › Great Theistic Quotes by KAG(op): 2:43am On Jun 05, 2009

We had the atheist one and it'd be interesting to see what the theist one will be like. Feel free to submit motivational, inspiring, and loving quotes. By the same token, there's no need to shy away from also posting the downright nasty, vicious and divisive quotes by theists. Let's try not make this a "quote from my religious book" thread.

I'll start:

One of my favourites, The prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace.

Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
and where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life. Amen

- Prayer of Saint Francis of Assisi

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 2:36am On Jun 05, 2009

noetic2:

are u this frustrated . . .where is ur scientific evidence?

Oh dear! I'm not frustruated. Bemused? Yes. Resigned? Yes. To even begin to envision me being frustruated, I'd have to have a high estimation of the person at the other spectrum of the discussion. Just saying.

For what it's worth, you'd learn and grow more if you read, acknowledge, and properly engage with posts that directly address questions you may have. After that, if you had more questions, discussions and the exchange of ideas and knowledge may ensue. As it is I fear that isn't going to happen, so I'm off to listen to some Spivak. I'll check back later to see if there are any worthy developments. Later.

Christianity Etc › Re: Gay Penguin Rearing Adopted Chick by KAG: 12:20am On Jun 05, 2009

Those penguins and their gay agenda.

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 12:19am On Jun 05, 2009

noetic2:
Am I the only one that cant see this EVIDENCE of yours? Where is ur scientific evidence?

https://i186.photobucket.com/albums/x259/alastair_hm/facepalmbq8dj7.jpg

Christianity Etc › Re: Who Is This Anti-christ? by KAG: 7:36pm On Jun 04, 2009

If it's Jesus, then that would be Elizabeth. kiss

you know, aunty, anti, get it? Aw, never mind.

Seriously, though, if nominations are going for the role, can I put my name up? I hear you get to do stuff with dragons, plagues, and the like. Sounds like fun. I like teh lulz.

Christianity Etc › Re: Why I Am Not An Atheist by KAG: 7:30pm On Jun 04, 2009

Project Steve has a longer list. Better still, Project Steve has more biologists. Steves > than Creationists' list.

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 5:17pm On Jun 04, 2009

OLAADEGBU:
Seriously? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I gave one example against the notion of Zeus's powers, and by default his existence; and another that shakes the Mormon faith and, also by default, its god. Unless, of course, you meant you would like to know the scientific discoveries that put paid to Zeus the hurler of lightning and the veracity of the Mormon book. For lightning go to any science book. For genetics and the Mormon book, see here: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html
These are all semantics and diversionary tactics. Can you please answer the question and give us your scientific evidence that proves that there is no God and stop beating about the bush.

Um, what? How exactly are they semantics and diversionary tactics? I didn't even going into definitions or anything of the sort, so I'm puzzled at the suugestion that any of that has to do with semantics. Do you know what semantics mean?

In any case, since I'm already indulging you, I suppose it's only proper that I give you the context of this line of discussion, since you somehow failed to read it.

After I pointed out that,

'According to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".'

the op asked yet again for scientific evidence. As you can see there were no diversions or semantics. Further, I responded squarely to what was in the op and subsequent responses. Now you do the same.

On the chance that you meant is you'd like some more, and at the risk of sidetracking this thread (amongst other worries that I won't mention just yet), I'll go ahead and add to my initial examples.

First, in Der Spiegel, discussing the universe, its origins and characteristics, Prof. Hawking sums up what has been discovered through the sciences that deal with the universe:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary"
Prof. Hawking summed up in his own opinion what has been discovered but do you know who originated the scientific laws that was discovered and formulated by man in the first place?

The scientifc laws were created by humans. What those laws describe, however, as implied in the quote from Hawking, do not need gods to be operational. Depending on the law or theory in question, full or partial understanding of how and what causes them to occur may be decipherable.

To reiterate, the scientifc discoveries are not primary evidence against gods. They do, however, buttress arguments against the need for gods. Essentially, "goddidit" began its slow march towards death with the onset of modern science.

What scientific theories could possibly make gods unnecessary in the question of the existence of the universe. Well the foremost is the Big Bang with Inflation theory. I won't go into details, but suffice to say that although the Big Bang theory isn't a foundation for atheism, it may be used to buttress it.
You evolutionists have avoided the big bang theory because you know how ridiculous it has panned out to be but that is the foundation that you base your other theories like the evolutionary theory on. Tell us what caused the big bang at the very beginning? Was that thing eternal, that is, has it always existed? Your guess is as good as mine.

Well, first, you're both and wrong and lying. You're wrong to imply that acceptance of the Big Bang theory is analogous to acceptance of the theory of evolution. Two different theories; two different fields. And you're lying when you imply that I, at the very least, have avoided the Big Bang theory. Far from it, and you know it.

If you want me to address the Big Bang theory with you, then you have to acknowledge all the other times I've done that, particularly the ones with you participating. That's all you have to do. Repent from your lie, and show that you remember at least a little tidbit of my other posts on the subject.

You asked: "why should the bible be the criteria for defining these characteristics?" The simplest answer is because you wrote this: "if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?"
Can you for once leave the Bible (that you don't understand or believe in) out of this and explain to us your evidence of the non existence of God?

No, I can't leave the Bible out of this. That you ignore that the Bible in itself indicates the falsity of the claims on the behalf of the Christian god, is telling.

I minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty by just using the Bible as the standard for understanding the meaning of those words where it necessarily gives or implies meaning.

As if you have done anything else but this.

[/quote]Minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty, etc? To a certain extent, yes, I have done much to the effect of minimising.

[quote]You claim that for me "In one breadth [sic], the bible is a fairytale" Can you show me where I've said the Bible is a fairy tale? Anyway, since I know you won't find an example of that, I'll get to the point. The Bible itself isn't a fairy tale. However, along with some history, morals and teachings, it also contains many myths and allegories. Some fabrications, too, probably.
This is your intellectual dishonesty showing up here, we all know what you stand for so there is no point playing your game of semantics again.

You use words to which you don't seem to know their meaning. Anyway, my point stands, irrespective of what you think I stand for. The Bible is what I said it is.

All the poster was asking was for the advocates of Mr B's postulation to give their scientific evidence of what they believe and here you are running a commentary on the Bible that confuses you.

How do you expect to see the existence of God, with those evolutionistic spectacles? If there is no God that we claim that created the universe, explain to us the origin of the universe, how something came out of nothing that proves that there is no need for God.

Yeah, I'm bored already. If you hade read the op, you'd have realised that the poster also asked for an intellectual based response to the non-existence of gods. Yeah, that's where inherent contradictions come into play. That's where the Christian's god and love have a conflict if the Bible is used as our source. Also, if you had bothered to read all of my posts rather than trying to give the semblance of response with drivel (that also tells me something about the effect the parts you may have read are having), you'd have seen how I address both the scientific and the, for a lack of a better word, the intellectual aspects of disbelieving that gods exist.

I should also add here that if you had really thought that I was confused about what 1st John and 1st Corinthians are saying, you'd have been eager - over-eager, in fact - to show where I went wrong in my analysis. As it stands, we both know that it isn't me that is confused about what those verses say.

Finally, as to the Big Bang. See an earlier part of this post. Ciao.

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 8:58pm On Jun 03, 2009

noetic2:
Yes, and I then proceded to give a detailed response to both its premise and fallacies.

Not quite. AAccording to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".
Please produce these "scientific evidences" . . .

Seriously? Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I gave one example against the notion of Zeus's powers, and by default his existence; and another that shakes the Mormon faith and, also by default, its god. Unless, of course, you meant you would like to know the scientific discoveries that put paid to Zeus the hurler of lightning and the veracity of the Mormon book. For lightning go to any science book. For genetics and the Mormon book, see here: http://www.godandscience.org/cults/dna.html

On the chance that you meant is you'd like some more, and at the risk of sidetracking this thread (amongst other worries that I won't mention just yet), I'll go ahead and add to my initial examples.

First, in Der Spiegel, discussing the universe, its origins and characteristics, Prof. Hawking sums up what has been discovered through the sciences that deal with the universe:

"What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary"

What scientific theories could possibly make gods unnecessary in the question of the existence of the universe. Well the foremost is the Big Bang with Inflation theory. I won't go into details, but suffice to say that although the Big Bang theory isn't a foundation for atheism, it may be used to buttress it.

I don't think you understand what the terms "intelectual" and "logical" mean. Also, even if for some bizarre reason my definition of goodness, mercy, etc. are rejected out hand, I can simply turn to the book Christians call the book of their god and show that their god lacks several of the characteristics as defined or implied in said book.

If we were to be blind to everything else, but came across John 4:8 ". . . God is love" and then realised that Paul gives a definition of what it means to love in 1st Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

. . .then, anyone that asks that we believe ina literal reading of the Bible has to logicallly, intellectually accept that the Judeo-Christian god isn't love. It (the Christian's god) isn't good, if love is what Paul says it is.

Good? Good is an arbitrary term to define things that we perceive to be favourable to us and the people we love or with whom we empathise. The Christian god? I only understand it from what Christian tradition and the Old Testament have claimed on its behalf. That god, if it existed, would be one of the most schizophrenic entities in existence.
I have a problem with ur major inconsistencies. In one breadth, the bible is a fairytale, and now u are quoting out of it to justify ur misinformed notions. Define ur meaning of good, love and other xterics. . . explain ur understanding of GOD (if u have any). . .then reconcile the meaning of these xterics to ur understanding of GOD.

You asked: "why should the bible be the criteria for defining these characteristics?" The simplest answer is because you wrote this: "if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?"

I minimised the chances of games of semantics and intellectual dishonesty by just using the Bible as the standard for understanding the meaning of those words where it necessarily gives or implies meaning.

You claim that for me "In one breadth [sic], the bible is a fairytale" Can you show me where I've said the Bible is a fairy tale? Anyway, since I know you won't find an example of that, I'll get to the point. The Bible itself isn't a fairy tale. However, along with some history, morals and teachings, it also contains many myths and allegories. Some fabrications, too, probably.

Further, I don't have to define those words. It's easier to point to parts of the Bible that utilise or define the words. If on the one hand something is claimed of the god of the Bible, and on the other the Bible shows a contradiction, then we are still following what is presented in the book. By that token, if, as I pointed out, 1st John tells us "God is love", Paul defines love in 1st Corinthians, and the god of the Bible contravenes most of those characteristics of love, then you have a big, glaring contradiction. One that belies, and potentially falsifies the veracity of the Bible.

Let me reiterate. It is by using the Bible's definitions and implications, if for no other reason than to avoid a semantics game, that the contradictions appear in their most glaring. In that, I needn't use a dictionary, as your book suffices.

You'd make a lousy psychologist. Don't quit your day job. It has nothing to do with any supposed "inherent bitterness triggered by hate", and more to do with I don't see gods existing. The graves some think they are buried are still generally fresh mounds, so I suppose most don't realise the gods are gone.
EVIDENCE ?

Um, what? Evidence that I don't see gods existing?

"At last the Skeptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even no gardener at all?"

- A. Flew

Christianity Etc › Re: Theory Of Evolution by KAG: 3:39am On Jun 03, 2009

senator4u:
[color=#000099][/color][b][/b] WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, IS THERE TRUTH IN IT?

The theory of evolution is currently the best explanation for the origins and diversity of species. As at yet, the theory has yet to be falsified.

Christianity Etc › Re: Are There Any Account(s) Of Dinosaurs In The Bible? by KAG: 3:36am On Jun 03, 2009

tonye-t:
prior to now, i have always argued about the true existence of dinosaurs, but some few wks ago i saw on news about an excavated site of dinosaur fossils and skeleton/skeletal structure found somewhere around egypt

it was so real that i was forced to ask myself if dinosaurs really existed and if yes why avnt i come across any account of it in the bible because i feel it is very important to know the age they existed at least to make one firm about the knowledge of the origin of life and other things

pls this thread should not be turned into another athiest conference meeting, lets argue maturedly, i need answers.

God bless you

Wait, what? Prior to now you had always argued about the true existence of dinosaurs? Know that I'm genuinely curious and not being condescending when I ask, how? How did your argument tend to go?

In any case, to answer your question, no, the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. That in spite of the generous reading of some who on the one hand claim to be literalists.

Christianity Etc › Re: Hurray! Evolutionists Have Their "missing Link" At Last! by KAG: 3:28am On Jun 03, 2009

bindex:
I must confess that I have never really taken time to do a very good study on evolution but what are the empirical evidence for evolution?

On the genetics side, in the study of human evolution, the two I prefer to use are the case of shared ERVs between humans and other apes, and the presence of the fused chromosome 2 in humans. For more chromosome 2 see here: http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm and on ervs, see Winace's write up: http://www.christianforums.com/t96639/#post1828408

Christianity Etc › Re: Hurray! Evolutionists Have Their "missing Link" At Last! by KAG: 3:11am On Jun 03, 2009

No2Atheism:
Yes KAG how u dey, i missed you too .

In terms of why Tesla is the greatest, do yourself a favour and find out about the "Dynamic Theory of Gravity". And how it does away with some of the things that Einstein postulated. Also find out about Zero Point energy. Wireless transmission of electricity, something Tesla had perfected but which we are still grappling with. Attempts to try and duplicate what Tesla had already done are considered issues of national security by developed nations. An example of attempt at duplication of the wonderful things Tesla has done is the known as the Haarp Project (look it up )

Okay, let's start from the beginning. I don't see how anyone can claim Tesla's "dynamic theory of gravity" does away with the things Einstein postulated (which things?), especially considering it's apparently impossible to know the major details and mathematics of the theory. That is, unless you happen to have a paper by Tesla detailing those things.

Second, yes he had a working wireless prototype. I wouldn't say we are struggling to understand it.

Third, the only developed country that I know of that suggested HAARP might be dangerous is Russia. Considering the time they made the suggestion, and there's no general scientific detraction on the project, I'd say you shouldn't listen to conspiracy theories.

Finally, what are we to make of replications, both physical and otherwise, of Einstein's theory of relativity?

Tesla was so fucking brilliant that we still do not understand most of what he was talking about till today, only a few people have the slightest idea how to replicate things that he built and made to work during his lifetime.

Really? Like what?

Tesla was close to providing a free source of energy for everybody to use, until the tycoons like Morgan Stanley basically stopped him by denying him funding and access to funding.

Einstein's wife (Mileva Maric Einstein) was extremely brilliant, infact she co-authored an original manuscript, but not really popularly acknowledged. Why else did you think Einstein gave her the noble prize money. Hence technically speaking the theory that Einstein was credited for was not entirely done by him.

Yes, I know about Tesla's intentions and how he was treated. On Einstein's wife, I know nothing. I do know, though, that if Einstein wasn't the one that did the work on the theory of relativity and several other theories, then he must have been good at cramming and winging in such a way as to deceive many.

Whereas in comparison and the basic mind-boungling implication of his work, Tesla was a solo worker and a genius of geniuses. Einstein focused solely on Theoretical Science and was very good in it. Nevertheless Tesla focused on both Theoretical Science and Inventions Science and was a genius at both.

Just like you KAG, i also used to think that Einstein was the greatest, until i did a little bit of research into their history and work and life.

That's fine, except I don't think Einstein was the greatest. I've never said anything of the sort.

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 2:44am On Jun 03, 2009

noetic2:
Do u understand my question at all?

Yes, and I then proceded to give a detailed response to both its premise and fallacies.

Well, let's first start with the assertion that A can analyse and define her beliefs within the concepts of scientific knowledge, etc. I honestly doubt that's an accurate assessment of the theist's position in regards to gods. The allure - and flaw - of gods is that when scientific evidence that is falsifiable (c.f. empirical evidence) is asked of or for them, the theist is able to reside or hide behind the claim that his or her god is beyond the scope of humanity; essentially, that the god or gods are transcendental - sometimes, even impossibly beyond transcendent. It all belies what you claim.

In any case, on to B. What is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? There isn't any per se. What can be pointed to instead is the existence of alternative, empirically based theories and concepts that could help us understand the existence of humans sans gods. With that B doesn't need to accept "Goddidit" as a viable reason for her existence.
According to u, there is no scientific evidence to buttress the non-existence of GOD notion, dont u consider this notion as guilty as the "religions " atheism antagonises?
So for the sake of living in denial, without recourse to reason, logic, scientific experimentation, research, analogy . . . . . . u simply deny the existence of GOD.

Not quite. AAccording to me, there is scientific evidence to buttress the notion of the non-existence of gods, but there isn't scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods. Do you see the difference? Science can be used to buttress, but not as one's categorical primary argument against all gods. That is not to say, however, that some principles of gods can't be shown to be wrong, like for instance the discovery that lightning weren't Zeus's weapons. What happens next, though, is that the "true believers" find a way to ignore that their beliefs have been falsified. A very recent example is the case of where the science of genetics showed that a central belief of the Mormon church - made by Joey Smith - were wrong. Facts still didn't deter the "true believers".

As far as the intellectual goes, though, there are several arguments - some more satisfactory than others. The problem of evil is a firm favourite for many when informed of the supposed existence of an omni-max deity like the Christian one, thus one can present the argument so neatly summed up by Archibald McLeish in JB: "If God is God, he is not good/ If God is good, he is not God/ Take the even, take the odd"
Ur argument cannot be regarded as an intellectual basis for the non-existence of GOD. simply because it is logically one-way traffic.
if ur definition of goodness, mercy, kindness and other xterics of GOD, does not conform with the xtian God, how exactly does that negate HIS existence?

I don't think you understand what the terms "intelectual" and "logical" mean. Also, even if for some bizarre reason my definition of goodness, mercy, etc. are rejected out hand, I can simply turn to the book Christians call the book of their god and show that their god lacks several of the characteristics as defined or implied in said book.

If we were to be blind to everything else, but came across John 4:8 ". . . God is love" and then realised that Paul gives a definition of what it means to love in 1st Corinthians 13:

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.
5 It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.
6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.
7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

. . .then, anyone that asks that we believe ina literal reading of the Bible has to logicallly, intellectually accept that the Judeo-Christian god isn't love. It (the Christian's god) isn't good, if love is what Paul says it is.

what does it mean to be good? and who do understand to be GOD?

Good? Good is an arbitrary term to define things that we perceive to be favourable to us and the people we love or with whom we empathise. The Christian god? I only understand it from what Christian tradition and the Old Testament have claimed on its behalf. That god, if it existed, would be one of the most schizophrenic entities in existence.

For me, since simply pointing out I just don't believe any gods exist is enough for most people, I'm more content with just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the characteristics and actions of their gods, and the inanity in the dogmas they espouse. For instance, then, to use the Christian god again, the inherent philosophical contradiction in presenting YHVH as both immediately immanent and transcendental is one to which I may point.
This is a better explanation for atheism. Denying the existence of GOD, not on a scientific or intellectual, logical or rational basis, perhaps on the basis of inherent bitterness triggered by hate.

You'd make a lousy psychologist. Don't quit your day job. It has nothing to do with any supposed "inherent bitterness triggered by hate", and more to do with I don't see gods existing. The graves some think they are buried are still generally fresh mounds, so I suppose most don't realise the gods are gone.

Christianity Etc › Re: Hurray! Evolutionists Have Their "missing Link" At Last! by KAG: 12:08am On Jun 01, 2009

No2Atheism:
Exactly,

@Kag, don't worry that is how it all starts. It all starts when u start to question the official party line. I would not be suprised if your fellow Evolutionists actually start to turn on you for daring to questions the "ever missing" missing link discovery.

No offence, but um, what the hell are you on about? There is no offical party line. There is the need for scepticism with claims that have little going for them, though. That the whole Ida debacle may be flawed doesn't invalidate the other independent, empirical and potentially falsifiable lines of evidence for evolution. Evolution occurs.

Men is so good to think outside of the box and scrutinise all supposed truths,

Yes it is. Although sometimes it's better to question why there's a box and why you are in it. Anyway, yes, scepticism is often good.

For example of how easy it is to be brainwashed via the official party line, I would use an example about Nikola Tesla.

I am a scientist by nature and an engineer by study, yet it took a while to realise that:

Nikola Tesla was the greatest scientist ever, yet most people do not even hear about him. Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that he made Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison look like a dullards.
Nikola Tesla was so bloody good that most of his research have been termed state secrets by some developed countries like USA and Russia.
The alarming part is the Nikola Tesla actually showed that Albert Einstein was wrong via is own (Nikola Tesla's) theory.

I only came to know about him when i started to search for the truth behind the news, the Media has simply brainwashed everybody into thinking that Albert Einstein was the best thing since Sliced Bread.

Tesla may or may not have been the greatest scientist ever. That's debatable. He was a very brilliant man, though. I don't think there's a big conspiracy against the Tesla name and his invention - at least, not presently; not since the waned influence of Edison.

Anyway, Einstein has been rightly lauded for his work. He got an amount of things wrong, but several of the things he got right were breathtaking. Which brings me to your claim. In what did Tesla show Einstein wrong?

Christianity Etc › Re: People Pls It's "God" Not "god" by KAG: 3:08pm On May 31, 2009

Diva1:
People please when referring to the one Almighty one above, it's "God" not "god". This just got my attention.

Why?

Christianity Etc › Re: Disbelief In God. by KAG: 2:13am On May 31, 2009

noetic: Mr A believes that there is a living and existing GOD.
Mr B believes in the nihilance/non-existence of GOD.

Both Mr A and B must be able to analyse and define their beliefs, within the concepts of scientific knowledge, intelectualism and rationality.

To the advocates of Mr B's postulation, I ask: what is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of GOD?

what is the intellectual evidence for the non-existence of GOD?

Well, let's first start with the assertion that A can analyse and define her beliefs within the concepts of scientific knowledge, etc. I honestly doubt that's an accurate assessment of the theist's position in regards to gods. The allure - and flaw - of gods is that when scientific evidence that is falsifiable (c.f. empirical evidence) is asked of or for them, the theist is able to reside or hide behind the claim that his or her god is beyond the scope of humanity; essentially, that the god or gods are transcendental - sometimes, even impossibly beyond transcendent. It all belies what you claim.

In any case, on to B. What is the scientific evidence for the non-existence of gods? There isn't any per se. What can be pointed to instead is the existence of alternative, empirically based theories and concepts that could help us understand the existence of humans sans gods. With that B doesn't need to accept "Goddidit" as a viable reason for her existence.

As far as the intellectual goes, though, there are several arguments - some more satisfactory than others. The problem of evil is a firm favourite for many when informed of the supposed existence of an omni-max deity like the Christian one, thus one can present the argument so neatly summed up by Archibald McLeish in JB: "If God is God, he is not good/ If God is good, he is not God/ Take the even, take the odd"

For me, since simply pointing out I just don't believe any gods exist is enough for most people, I'm more content with just pointing out the glaring contradictions in the characteristics and actions of their gods, and the inanity in the dogmas they espouse. For instance, then, to use the Christian god again, the inherent philosophical contradiction in presenting YHVH as both immediately immanent and transcendental is one to which I may point.

Christianity Etc › Re: Hurray! Evolutionists Have Their "missing Link" At Last! by KAG: 1:33am On May 31, 2009

On Ida, I'd advice people to exercise caution in accepting what has essentially been a circus act as opposed to the science of taxonomy, etc. The claims that Ida is representational of human ancestry appear to be greatly exagerrated at best. Further, always be wary of discoveries that try to bypass or influence the peer-review process by not only publishing its wonky paper after sensationalising its discovery in the press, but also finally realeasing it in a subpar journal. That the guys behind Ida should act like Creationists in their dealing with the discovery should certainly set off alarm bells. Just my thoughts so far.

Christianity Etc › Re: Is Acceptance of Evolution A Threat To Belief In God - Theism? by KAG: 1:28am On May 31, 2009

huxley2:
Why do some religionist get so hot under their pants when evolution is mentioned? Is evolution a threat to religious belief? If it is, why do they consider it a threat? And what do detractors of evolution make of other religionists who accept evolution? Do they think that their theology is wrong-headed?

Watch a very good Christian scientist who accepts and defends evolution here.

Simple answer, no, acceptance of evolution is generally not a threat to belief in any gods. However, it can be problematic for theists in religions that actively promote a history of myths as facts. Or people that think thse myths are in fact literal happenings. At that point many of those theists convince themselves that every other person in their religion that accepts evolution isn't a true member of the religion.

Anyway, Ken Miller is always a great example of a sceintist capable of doing evolutionary science despite his Christianity.

JIL:
WORD OF THE DAY: The only difference between a cow and an atheist is that the cow knows its stupid

You're a cow?

P.S. Not to be a pedantic ass or anything, but that's not a word, it's a series of words that have been badly joined to resemble a sentence.

Christianity Etc › Re: Conversation Between An Atheist Professor And His Student by KAG: 12:24am On Apr 15, 2009

OLAADEGBU:
This is the part you left out which conveys my point exactly. That he often shudders that he might be saying a lot of balony.

No, I didn't leave out that part. If you look at the context which I provided, you'd see it included there. What the context conveys is that Darwin was assured of the validity of what he proposed. That much is made clear in what follows the quote-mined part.

I'll start from the bottom up. No, I don't get any email notifications. If I do then they must end up in the spam area of my account - I don't look at the spam area of my account. More importantly, though, like I wrote previously, if that's the best you've to offer, you really have nothing then. The thread was dead for two weeks. I was gone. Now that you've revived it and called my attention to it, I've responded to it. If that's running, then another for what your ilk does may have to be invented.
And you thought that anyone will buy into those lame excuses you made. Except the moderators lock or delete a thread it remains active, and I don't have to send an e-mail to you for you to respond. This was only last month with about two weeks interval where others have posted after you in the same thread and yet you claim ignorance of the activity going on, this baffles me. Could it be that you were badly rattled that you had to grab for straws as a drowning man?

First of all, the interval between my post and your response was about three weeks. The interval between the other posts in the thread and your response was two weeks. I pointed that out earlier.

Second, you'd only have a case if you had posted a response that I had ignored. As soon as you pointed out your response in the thread, I responded to it.

Third, like I wrote earlier, if that's the best you can offer then we'd need to find a new term for what you and your ilk do.

Finally, just to buttress earlier points, it isn't that I expect you to send an email to me every time you write a response. No, that isn't the point. The point here is that unless I had been monitoring the thread, it would be unlikely that I would have seen your response in other to offer a rebuttal.

I should also add that this has become redundant.

Let me make my point clearer, you did what you should have done in the first place: called my attention to a thread in which you responded to my post almost three weeks after it was made. I have rebutted your post. Now if only Christians of your type could be honest, we'd make some progress.
What obligation, and to who?
Instead of you to eat your humble pie and admit that you atheists have been caught pants down for running from pillar to posts, you are here crying wolf that I did not look for you so that you could respond. Did you expect me to send an e-mail or to give you a phone call? What kind of lame excuse is this? And your rebuttal was just hot air, medicine after death, as you still fail to show me the evidence of the origin of the universe or is it now particularity? Just plain speculations, conjectures that your fable called evolution has fed you with, blind faith.

That's nice. I see managed to throw in some handwaving too, while you were at it. Classy. It's a good thing I've met honest Christians, eh?

An obligation to mostly my sphere of immediate interaction. You see, one needn't make a pact with a make believe entity to be obliged to striving for honesty. You ought to try it sometime. Feels good, man.
You mean your fellow evolutionists that believe in your fantasy? What are your terms of reference for your honesty, is it political correctness? My terms of reference is the Holy Bible that says that I should love God with all my heart, soul and strength and to love my neighbours as my self. What does yours say, survival of the fittest? He has not only given me the terms of reference, He has also given me grace, which is by faith. He has forgiven me of my past sins, given me grace for today to live in the newness of life and lastly hope for the future. Can you be sure of where you came from, what your purpose here on earth is and where you will be going from here? Your guess is as good as mine.

You may find this shocking, but, no, I interact with more than just people that accept the theory of evolution. Also, you're being quite ridiculous. Calm down, love. I'm happy for you and your beliefs in parts of the Bible. Keep it up. And, no, I don't use the theory of evolution as a religious coda. I only use it as the best explanation we have for the origins and diversity of species. FInally, no, I do have a good idea of where I came from, and where I'm going. That's life.

My stance on homosexuality and gay marriage are they a-ok as long as it's between two consenting adults. I'm mostly in support of adults being able to choose when it comes to euthanasia and abortion. However, I'm inclined to being able to view it in other ways depending on the situation at hand. I'm against racism; and inclined against family break ups. Althought I realise they are sometimes inevitable. I've no problem with legal pornography.
So much for your moral code which exactly proves my point. You make up your rules as you go along as they suit you, and as long as you can get away with murder. When it becomes politically correct to reduce the age of pornography and to practice paedophilia will you follow suit, since it would be the situation at hand? I guess the current political correctness that prevents you from carrying out your hero's ideology of racism "survival of the fittest" is a handicap to you preventing you from carrying out your philosophy as long as they don't see you saying or doing it. What will you do when it becomes the in thing to do?

I think it's even more interesting that theists, including Christians, may - and likely do - share my views on the things you mentioned. It is getting away with murder - which I'm generally morally against, anyway. And it certainly has nothing to with political correctness (I'm beginning to suspect you don't understand the meaning of the term). No, I wouldn't be for pedophilia or lowering the age for appearances in pornigraphy. I've never been one to support preying on children. I've also been one for going with vox populi as a means of deciding ethical stances. Hell, I wouldn't be an atheist - a minority - if I was like that.

No, evolution - especially not the theory of - didn't make any of those things norms. Humans, some who accept the theory, others who don't, made those things sometimes acceptable in societies. The theory of evolution , on the other hand, is a field in biology that explains species.
Alright, however you wish to move the goalpost, evolution ideology that is based on the survival of the fittest that is now shifted to the financial and business world.

What goalpost? It would be shifting the goalpost if I had brought up the to . . . you know what, it doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure you don't understand the clause "survival of the fittest" as used by Darwin and subsequently in field of evolution. And, no, it hasn't be shifted to financial and business world. I suspect you're thinking of "social Darwinism", which, incidentally and ironically, preceded Darwin's formulation of the theory of evolution.

Finally,like I wrote previously, if you're a product of the "absolute morality" of the Bible, then I'll pass.
Lame excuse. Naming a dog a bad name so as to hang it.

Lame excuse for what? Decrying your brand of Christianity? Look, I'll be blunt here, you're a dishonest toe-rag. An unrepentant one. You're preaching your morality. If you're an example of that morality, then it's a terrible ideology. There's no excuse there, it's just based on what I've observed in communicating with your type.

Why would a scientist embrace bad science against all odds?

[list]
[li]Your peers believe it[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]You don't know all the data[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]To counter Christian beliefs[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]To escape from the accountability of the Creator God[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]Pride of not willing to eat humble pie [/li]
[/list]

The reasons above are why you will decide to close your eyes to all the evidence that supports creation and the Creator God and not because someone has put you off.

Whatever helps you ignore the evidence. Hey, you know what, if you want people to rejct the theory of evolution, you can start by giving positive scientific evidence for Creationism. I mean you're already ignoring the fact evidence for evolution - see the examples I've give in this thread, for some instances - haven't been falsified, so you might as weel go down that route.

All the evidence for the lies of your evolution has been provided in the links suggested, wake up and smell the coffee.

"The nine Great Proofs of Evolution" and why they are all false.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

http://www.techchuff.com/web-2-0/snopes_hoax

I don't have the time to rebutt a website. Further, to avoid any claimsof me picking the weakest points to refute, it would be easier if you chose the one you think best supports your claim.

The points have been made that your links are hoaxes made by your fellow atheists which has been exposed for what they are so deal with it.

You're right, they are all hoaxes. Einstein despite not being a student of philosophy or a dumb Christian, argued with a stupid philosophy professor. Hey, all those deans that assert they have never had alecturer like those portrayed in those stories, lied too.

In fact, everything and everyone is in on this conspiracy to make you look bad, man. I hear even the trees are in on it. You're the man now, dog.

Christianity Etc › Re: Conversation Between An Atheist Professor And His Student by KAG: 12:53pm On Apr 14, 2009

Bobbyaf:
@ Huxley or Kag

Let me ask Huxley, or Kag this question. What comprised the first unicellular organism, and how did it happen to put itself together in such an orderly fashion to have become the launching pad for life?

Well, first, there's no way of knowing. All that can be done is give possible scenarios of the first lifeforms on earth. You'll notice I wrote forms. Which is plural. That's because it would likely have been a series of organisms that may have been caused naturally. Several theories and hypotheses on abiogenesis are still grappling with the possible ways it may have occured. The most promising when I last checked - which was a considerable time ago - was the "RNA world" hypotheis.

Christianity Etc › Re: Conversation Between An Atheist Professor And His Student by KAG: 12:46pm On Apr 14, 2009

OLAADEGBU:
And what information has your quoting of the whole passage added to the quote I made? Wasn't I the one who quoted Charles Darwin, giving you the full reference for you to check up on? Why didn't you quote the whole chapter if you felt that it will change the meaning of the point I made? And what is your point that was different from what I quoted?

Totally. It does change the slant you were trying to present. This is never made clearer than when one reads the sentence that follows your quote-mine:

. . . "Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace."

The picture you were trying to paint is thereby evidently different from what Darwin's letter in its context implies: that Darwin was being modest, and more, was certain that at that point he was certain the theory championed by himself and Wallace was no "phantasy" but as yet largely unfalsified science.

I posted the rest of the context, by the way, so you could realise that attitudes change very little. You should read the rest of it, if no other reason than to see your unintelligent bigotry preceded by over a century.

Lol, you really can't help being dishonesst can you? Let's take a look at the thread in question. I had responded to everything, then the thread came to an end. You then, after spending days ignoring the thread and spamming the forum, return to it two weeks later, post some random cut\paste in the thread everyone - but you - had forgotten about. You're not being very honest. In any case, I'll respond to it now that I've been drawn to it. However, if that's the best you can offer, then . . . well, you know.
You appeared to have been stung here did you? Remember that it was you who started to point your accusing finger at Christians that they were cutting and running away from your threads without replying, and when I made you see that when you point your crooked finger at others you should guess what direction the other fingers are pointing to. Don't pretend that you have forgotten about the thread, you have the e-mail notification reminding you of replys to your posts. Now you will know that he who sows to the wind will nowadays reap the hurricane, and that to a devastating effect. The point that you atheists are the runners has been proved.

I'll start from the bottom up. No, I don't get any email notifications. If I do then they must end up in the spam area of my account - I don't look at the spam area of my account. More importantly, though, like I wrote previously, if that's the best you've to offer, you really have nothing then. The thread was dead for two weeks. I was gone. Now that you've revived it and called my attention to it, I've responded to it. If that's running, then another for what your ilk does may have to be invented.

Let me make my point clearer, you did what you should have done in the first place: called my attention to a thread in which you responded to my post almost three weeks after it was made. I have rebutted your post. Now if only Christians of your type could be honest, we'd make some progress.

You can respond with some more laughable cliches now.
Actually, I have an obligation to be honest because striving for honesty is part of my moral code. I'm not perfect, but I try. You and your ilk, on the other hand, despite your rhetoric and assertions generally have little truck with honesty. If discussing and debating your kind has taught me anything, it's that lying and all-round disingenuousness is a standard you guys generally adopt. It may seem harsh, but it's the truth. Then again, I suppose that's easy to do if you feel your sky daddy will excuse your dishonesty if it's done for his "glory".
What obligation, and to who?

An obligation to mostly my sphere of immediate interaction. You see, one needn't make a pact with a make believe entity to be obliged to striving for honesty. You ought to try it sometime. Feels good, man.

Is it the moral code that you make up when it suits your selfish self? What is your stance on homosexual behaviour and gay marriage, euthanasia and abortion, family break-up, pornography, and racism? Do you want to tell us that the lies of evolution has not made these evil social vices the norm of society today? If you want to be morally upright you will appeal and be subject to the supreme source of absolute morality, the Holy Bible whose source is God who you unfortunately don't reckon with.

My stance on homosexuality and gay marriage are they a-ok as long as it's between two consenting adults. I'm mostly in support of adults being able to choose when it comes to euthanasia and abortion. However, I'm inclined to being able to view it in other ways depending on the situation at hand. I'm against racism; and inclined against family break ups. Althought I realise they are sometimes inevitable. I've no problem with legal pornography.

No, evolution - especially not the theory of - didn't make any of those things norms. Humans, some who accept the theory, others who don't, made those things sometimes acceptable in societies. The theory of evolution , on the other hand, is a field in biology that explains species.

Finally,like I wrote previously, if you're a product of the "absolute morality" of the Bible, then I'll pass.

Actually, that's not evidence, that's quote-mining. All the evidence you need are in the unfalsified independent lines of evidence that indicate the workings of evolution. Really, though, with genetic evidence in the shape of the presence of chromosome no.2, shared ERVs, etc; fossil evidence by way of transitionals like the dinosaur-bird remains, ape-human, etc; abstract ones like nested-heirarchies, etc; it's easy to understand why we consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for origins and diversity of species.
Yes, I agree, and here they are "The nine Great Proofs of Evolution" and why they are all false.

http://www.creationworldview.org/articles_view.asp?id=53

Hey, here's an idea, why don't pick the one you think is the best "evidence", then we can go over it. I've posted examples of excellent evidence for the occurrence of evolution. As is usual, they remain ignored.

In any case, what worries me at this point isn't that you reject evolution, but that you haven't acknowledged the fact that the stories - glurges in Snopes speak - you posted in this thread are dishonest.
I appeal to the source of Truth, which is the Holy Bible and you subscribe to the lies from the pit of hell as presented by your evolution and scopes.com which has been found out to be a far left democratic, liberal propagandist, created by a couple Barbara and David Mikkelson, all to deceive, and only those who have refused to accept the truth will fall into the deception of the last days.

http://www.techchuff.com/web-2-0/snopes_hoax

The hell? All of that to ignore what I wrote. Wow. Look, you can introduce as many ad hominems as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that those stories that were peddled in this thread are made up - essentially, lies for Jesus. So much for "absolute morality", I guess.

Christianity Etc › Re: A Question For You - Huxley by KAG: 8:05pm On Apr 12, 2009

Before I respond this, I take it that the lack of response to the other points I made indicates tacit agreement, right?

OLAADEGBU:
Quantum fluctuations don't necessarily mean something coming from nothing. However, in a case like virtual particles, it is something coming from nothing because a of a quantum fluctuation. No, it isn't magic, but a scientific phenomenom that was outside the scope of usual human experience. Another interesting point to consider, by the way, since the singulairty exists outside of time, could it then have had a beginning?
Are you saying anything different from the following evolutionists? who I believe are more qualified than you are.

Paul Davies, who is a physicist and evolutionist, in The Edge of infinity,1995. wrote:

"The [big bang] represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle . . ."

I thought you said that no miracle is involved, or is it that there is no miracle maker? Can evolutionists make up there minds whether miracles exists or not?

First, I should point out there is no indication that Paul Davies accepts the theory of evolution - although, being a smart man, he probably does tongue

What I think you mean isn't "evolutionist", but "big bangist", because that's the subject about which he's talking.

Second, I've made the point before, and I guess I'll have to make it again: accepting scientific theories does not make one an atheist. There seems to be strong indication that Davies is some type of deist.

Third, and this is linked to the preceding point, if Davies is a deist, it is understandable that he would wish to implicate some god in the origins of the universe. That aspect, however, is not a part of the science which I was discussing, and I'm inclined - rightly, I feel - to write about in its materialist conception.

Biblical creationists does not only believe in miracles we believe in the miracle maker who created time, space and matter/energy. We have a reasonable, faith and a foundation in the Creator who was there at the beginning, who has absolute certainty on the facts on what was created, when He created, how He created and how long it took for Him to create, and He has given us a preview in written form as well as our personal relationship with Him. So our faith is based on absolute certainty of the eyewitness who was there at the beginning.

Old Mac down at the asylum believes strongly that he's from another planet, has a robotic farm with a goose that lays golden eggs, and dogs that go "baa baa" on rollerskates at night. It doesn't make it so, though. He has little to no evidence for his beliefs, either.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Nietzsche

Evolution has no foundation it is based on blind faith because you have no eyewitness, it is only based on speculation, assumption and presuppositions which cannot be proved. It is a faith without foundation. Have you ever heard of a building without a foundation.

Except that's not true. I've given several types of evidence for the validity of evolution and the theoy exploring it. Others have done the same. It is, thus, a lie to claim it has no foundation, etc.

Also, yeah, I've heard of a building without a foundation. Several, in fact. Someone called them mansions in heaven, or something. I call them pie in the sky.

Let’s see what another evolutionist magazine had to say as to where and how the matter and energy originated from.

"The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere".
In the Discover magazine, Guth's Grand Guess , vol. 23, Apr. 2002, p.35

At least these guys are sincere even though they are sincerely wrong for admitting that the universe came from nowhere.

Joseph Silk (Ph.D. Astronomy and professor of Astronomy at the University of Oxford), in The big bang, 2001, p.xv. States that:

"It is only fair to say that we still have a theory without a beginning".

This evolutionist deserves kudos for admitting the obvious unlike our resident NL atheists.

This is what another seasoned evolutionist had to say about the origin of the universe:

" . . . astronomers have not the slightest evidence for the supposed [i][color=#990000]quantum production of the universe out of a primordial nothingness[/color]."[/i]

Sten Odenwald, (Ph.D. Astrophysics and Chief scientist with Raytheon STX Corp. at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Centre), in The Astronomy Cafe[/i], 1998, p. 120.

Sten Odenwald who is a Chief scientist and Astrophysicst was at least sincere to admit that they had no clue or evidence for the so called quantum production as Kag would like us to believe but because you guys would not dare to think of the possibility of the Creator God whom you will one day give an account to and because of the love of the sinful, selfish life you've been living, you will refuse to open your eyes to see the light.

Grouped together. For the first quote attributed to Guth, which, incidentally is nothing a blurb that appeared on a magazine (take that for what it's worth), I'll quote myself: "Quantum fluctuations don't necessarily mean something coming from nothing. However, in a case like virtual particles, it is something coming from nothing because a of a quantum fluctuation. "

For Silk's. I don't know the context, nor do I intend to look it up. Suffice to say, we do have a beginning when it comes to the big bang theory.

The third - Odenwald's - is sort of right. Most incidents of quantum fluctuation are only "observable" very indirectly or mathematically. The same goes for any theoretical conception of quantum beginnings for the universe. I said as much previously, but you ignored it. However, interestingly enough, with new investigative measures, which I won't go into at this point, the evidence - other than, "well, it works"- for quantum occurences is mounting. Sensitive and close attention still needs to be paid to many of the data collected.

There can only be three legitimate possibilities of the origin of the universe, which are:

[list]
[li]That the universe created itself;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]That the universe has always existed;[/li]
[/list]
[list]
[li]That the universe was created.[/li]
[/list]

Let's consider the first possibility, that the universe created itself.

[list]
[li]Can something create itself? That is, can a vehicle invent or create itself? Can you create yourself? The answer should be in the negative except you are an evolutionist.[/li]
[/list]

[list]
[li]Can nothing create something? From Latin you have the phrase and saying of “ex nihilo, nihil fit” which means from nothing , nothing comes”[/li]
[/list]

The law of cause and effect (even in your own book it does not exists) would be violated because the effect cannot be greater than the cause. Nothing cannot be greater than something, or can it? since you doubt it.

Therefore, based on the law of science and logic, the universe could not have created itself.

That's all wrong. You'll note the semantical game being played here by the juxstapositioning of the words "create" and "itself". The use of those terms in the discussion already reveal the fallacy that will be used to dismiss a suggestion of something coming into existence without gods. In any case, there are many observable instances of things just occuring without any creators. I've given virtual particles as one example. With just that example, the whole "logial" argument falls apart.

This leaves us with the next possibility. That the universe has always existed. This is what I believe you are projecting, that the singularity is eternal or self existing, no?

A singularity is not a universe, so, no.

The second law of Thermodynamics states that the whole universe as a whole is losing its available energy for doing usable work. This means that the usable energy in the universe is constantly wearing down. In other words, molecules as a whole is slowing down.

If this universe was eternal, we will be in what is called a virtual heat death. Meaning that there will be no molecular movement.

Therefore, the universe cannot be eternal, it must have had a beginning. That the universe has always existed has to be a false theory as we base our elimination on the law of science and logic

Again, that's a terrible misunderstanding of physics and logic. By the way, I don't think the universe is eternal. It might be infinite, though. And logic makes no sense to me, as, even if assume total entropy will occur, it doesn't mean that it need have happened even in an aternal universe. We would still be at a point in time that the event hasn't occured.

and that leaves us with only one possibility; that the Universe was created, that is, "In the beginning(time) God created the heaven(space) and the earth(matter/energy)." (Genesis 1:1)

God has given us two sources of information. His Word, which clearly teaches us that He is the Creator of all things and the other source, is His creation which verifies that there had to be a Creator.

You really don't understand logic *sigh*.

If evolution is unable to explain the origin of matter and energy through naturalistic means, then it is without a foundation.

Except, evolution, as in the theory of evolution, is a field in biology not particle physics. It aims to explain the origins and diversity of species. Anything else is your strawman.

Why should I accept evolution when you cannot produce the evidence? I already have a faith. Tell me about your faith and I will tell you about my faith. And by the way, could you tell me what your faith has to offer me and I’ll tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ has to offer you.

I've given you some evidence for the occurence of evolution. Everyones favourite seems to be shared ERVs in various related animals. I suspect I already gave you a link for that. Also, this is not the place to discuss things in which I do have faith. For yes, I do have faith. However, I don't have or use faith in scientific theories.

Also, if you're an indication of what faith in your religion has to offer, then I'll pass, thank you very much.

Where did the matter come from? You've got no clue, no answer and no foundation for your theory. Since you have no foundation nor answers, you are asking us to accept evolution by faith, even some so called Christians have swallowed your bait hook, line and sinker and have tried to use it to interprete the Genesis account so as to look intelligent. I already have a faith and I am not about to compromise my faith with a faith that has no foundation because my faith has answers and is based on a solid rock and on the Word of the One who was there at the beginning of Creation.

Matter:

"There's probably a mistake or two, and it is theoretical, but:

"Matter is everything that is constituted of elementary fermions, and has mass", which would make protons and neutrons matter by definition; and protons and neutrons are composed of [three] quarks respectively. So basically, quark clumps are what make up basic matter.

Anyway, we know that matter is basically anything that has mass and fermions. What’s the origin of fermions?

Particles, which are what fermions are, and anti-particles are created when energy fluctuates at the most quantum level. The two collide with each other usually, and return to energy, however inflation can result in a repulsive gravitational pull, which causes the particle and anti-particle to be ripped apart before they can collide, which results in free particles – fermions.

Fermions interacted with the Higgs field* and gained mass, which resulted in - you guessed it - matter.

Clearly, I've taken the liberty of oversimplifying what is indeed a very exhausting and complicated field of study, and I have been as brief as possible, so those that feel an urge to read more can either go through Wiki, or pick up a book on that deals with String theory, baryogenesis, or something similar. Those in the know would also have noted that I didn't mention bosons, but that's because I don't think there's a need to go into that.

Therefore, it is logical and reasonable to believe that God, not unknown magical events, created the universe. We have a rock solid foundation. We know who created, what was created, when it was created and how long it took to create. We have the answers, they are written in God’s Words and can also be verified through the work of His creations.

The Discworld books have better answers than your books. Sorry. I should add that you wouldn't know logical and reasonable even if you were being gang-raped by them.

Christianity Etc › Re: Conversation Between An Atheist Professor And His Student by KAG: 7:00pm On Apr 12, 2009

OLAADEGBU:
This is the evidence of what your evolutionary fantasy is all about.

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." - Charles Darwin

(The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 1887, Vol. 2, p. 229)

Quote-mines are evidence for the theory of evolution? News to me. Full context of the Darwin quote:

For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace. Thank you for criticisms, which, if there be a second edition, I will attend to. I have been thinking that if I am much execrated as an atheist, etc., whether the admission of the doctrine of natural selection could injure your works; but I hope and think not, for as far as I can remember, the virulence of bigotry is expended on the first offender, and those who adopt his views are only pitied as deluded, by the wise and cheerful bigots.

This is another evidence of how you abandoned the thread and ran with your tail between your hind legs:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=241487.0

The point of your opaque glassess has been made.

Lol, you really can't help being dishonesst can you? Let's take a look at the thread in question. I had responded to everything, then the thread came to an end. You then, after spending days ignoring the thread and spamming the forum, return to it two weeks later, post some random cut\paste in the thread everyone - but you - had forgotten about. You're not being very honest. In any case, I'll respond to it now that I've been drawn to it. However, if that's the best you can offer, then . . . well, you know.

You can respond with some more laughable cliches now.

No, that's Christian Creationists and, come to think to it, many apologists of the Christian and Muslim persuasion. I think it was Huxley that had this as a sig, and it's stuck with me: something along the lines of "it's permitted for Christians to be honest too". You should try it. Feels good, man.
Remember that you have no obligation to be honest. My honesty has a source who I appeal to which is the Bible and God Almighty, but why would you have to be honest since you have no reason to be moral, you simply make up your own rules, break them and make others as it suits your selfish self?

Actually, I have an obligation to be honest because striving for honesty is part of my moral code. I'm not perfect, but I try. You and your ilk, on the other hand, despite your rhetoric and assertions generally have little truck with honesty. If discussing and debating your kind has taught me anything, it's that lying and all-round disingenuousness is a standard you guys generally adopt. It may seem harsh, but it's the truth. Then again, I suppose that's easy to do if you feel your sky daddy will excuse your dishonesty if it's done for his "glory".

Do you know what 'Kofeso' Dawkins' response was to a similar question that was put to him?

Ques: Have you or anyone ever observed this transition?

Ans: "evolution has been observed it's just that it hasnt't been observed while it's happening."

That's all the evidence you need.

Actually, that's not evidence, that's quote-mining. All the evidence you need are in the unfalsified independent lines of evidence that indicate the workings of evolution. Really, though, with genetic evidence in the shape of the presence of chromosome no.2, shared ERVs, etc; fossil evidence by way of transitionals like the dinosaur-bird remains, ape-human, etc; abstract ones like nested-heirarchies, etc; it's easy to understand why we consider the theory of evolution to be the best explanation for origins and diversity of species.

In any case, what worries me at this point isn't that you reject evolution, but that you haven't acknowledged the fact that the stories - glurges in Snopes speak - you posted in this thread are dishonest.

Christianity Etc › Re: To Believe Is To Doubt! by KAG: 1:49am On Apr 11, 2009

misright:
A belief is a belief becuase the believer of that belief has not enough proof to make it fact, so anyone that claim to believe in the existance of God is in fact stating they have doubts about God's existance.

To pass off a belief in God as truth is to lie to yourself and to others, faith is used to justify the lying or the delusion to believe is to doubt, there is just no way around this logic

Holy tautology, Batman. It makes for an interesting thought, though (the concept of belief with doubt, not the tautological explanation of belief). I don't know I agree with the claim that stating a belief in something - a deity, in this case - is equal in weight to assumption of doubt in that thing. Further, if a person strongly believes in the existence of a being, I don't think it's necessarily lying to strongly state ones belief as if it were the only possible way things are.

It's interesting. I think it deserves some more reflection - on my part, if nobody else's.

Christianity Etc › Re: A Scientific Approach To The Relationship Between Religion And Misery. by KAG: 1:41am On Apr 11, 2009

In controlling you'd need more than one counter-example. So the likes of Sweden, Korea, etc. should be included. You'd also have to define how misery is to be measured and calculated. What degree of emotion counts as misery, etc.

I never did get the people that are convinced religion is responsible for human miseries, nor the people that believe it's responsible for human happiness. *shrugs*

Christianity Etc › Re: What Will U Do by KAG: 1:36am On Apr 11, 2009

youmour:
what will be ur thought bout religion if we discover ET *extra terrestrials* aka Aliens

I wonder what religion they practice? If they don't, I wonder which religious instituion would be the first to try to convert them to the "one true religion".

Christianity Etc › Re: The Many Lies Told By Jesus by KAG: 8:49pm On Apr 10, 2009

Enockia:
well the world needs people like u to take some people to hell

afterall not every body will go to heaven

Okay . . .? And on that bombshell . . .

Christianity Etc › Re: Greatest Atheist Quotes by KAG: 7:32pm On Apr 10, 2009

4 Play:
The dumbness of this quote is surpassed by the dumbness of its lauders. Everyone starts out benighted, innumerate and illiterate but no one in their sane mind will use this, whether expressly or impliedly, to extol ignorance and illiteracy.

Hey, man, relax, it's Andy Rooney. Chill out and watch some 60 minutes. You can wathc it people that are atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Scientologists, Animists, Hindus, Jains, Wiccans, Satanists . . . anybody really. Andy rules, and you know it.

Christianity Etc › Re: Greatest Atheist Quotes by KAG: 6:54pm On Apr 10, 2009

manmustwac:
Everyone starts out being an atheist. Noone is born with belief in anything.

-Andy Rooney

That just gave me the itch to watch some Andy Rooney. Lol. I'm surprised that quote didn't contain a list. I love Andy.

Christianity Etc › Re: Greatest Atheist Quotes by KAG: 3:15pm On Apr 10, 2009

Pastor AIO:
I've always wondered about the eternal recurrence. Can it actually be called a recurrence? If something were to happen again and exactly so in every particular could it really be said to be another occurrence or rather the very same occurrence.

Why would I gnash my teeth at the reoccurrence of this very moment if I'm not gnashing my teeth now. As I am ignorant of any previous occurrence of Now and live it, as it were, as if it were the first time so will I be in the future ignorant of it.

It would be a reoccurence of your entire life, not just this moment. I see your point, though, as if a person had to live exactly the same life again, then it stands to reason that the person cannot know that they had once lived that life previously thereby invalidating the whole enterprise. It's a great point. The way I understand it, Nietzsche's intention( as far as anybody can talk about Nietzsche's intentions) was for the reader to approach the thought experiment from the perspective of "I am currently living and thinking, and in reviewing my entire life to this moment, would my decisions, etc be worth going through again?). More so, "can I then ensure that the rest of my life contains a series of moments that will make me love the idea of life and want to do this all again just so I can experience those joys again". Something along those lines.

Christianity Etc › Re: Greatest Atheist Quotes by KAG: 3:01pm On Apr 10, 2009

S'more:

"Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die."

- On Truth and Lies ~

"There is an ancient story that King Midas hunted in the forest a long time for the wise Silenus, the companion of Dionysus, without capturing him. When Silenus at last fell into his hands, the king asked what was the best and most desirable of all things for man. Fixed and immovable, the demigod said not a word, till at last, urged by the king, he gave a shrill laugh and broke out into these words: «Oh, wretched ephemeral race, children of chance and misery, why do you compel me to tell you what it would be most expedient for you not to hear? What is best of all is utterly beyond your reach: not to be born, not to be, to be nothing. But the second best for you is-—to die soon."

The Birth of Tragedy"

Happy thoughts:

“My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: that one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it— all idealism is mendaciousness in the face of what is necessary— but love it.”

- Ecce Homo

"Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger."

- The Twilight of the Idols

Christianity Etc › Re: Greatest Atheist Quotes by KAG: 3:00pm On Apr 10, 2009

OLAADEGBU:
Adolf Hitler

Wasn't an atheist.

mantraa:
- René Descartes

Wasn't an atheist either.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 (of 55 pages)