₦airaland Forum

Are you one of those people that thinks that Isreal is God's country?

iv4fb: the most difficult time for an atheit is when he is really thankfull but have no one no be thankful to.

if there was no God, there wouldnt be an atheist. why will u be "dispproving" something, if it dont really exist?

People like you have submitted your brain to a non-existent God.


1)I can flip your argument to say that the most difficult time for a believer in God is when he/she has problems/evil in his life and is tempted to blame God. You say God is good but why does he allow evil to happen? Why does he allow 5 year old girls to be raped in Congo or children to be beaten and killed in Nigeria for false accusation of witchcraft. Do you know how islam and christianity came to Nigeria- through slavery?


2) If something good happens to me in life as an atheist, it's either by my actions or by random luck/coincidence. The same thing applies to bad things

LagosShia: what you guys finding excuse to run from answering the question on why we can't see evolution happening forget is this:

the time required as a factor for evolution to have taken place has already elapsed.that is why today you say humans evolved.so that time has already gone away.the evolutionary process already started and have taken place.therefore if it has happened,we should still be seeing it happening today.time is not an excuse because the time needed had passed long ago.

WTF are you talking about? We still observe evolution happening. Did you ignore all my posts on this thread?

vedaxcool: and you are sure you are not related to logicmind, on 1 we can likewise ask how does denying the holocaust be counted as a hate speech? on 2 we can say the dead no longer gave human rights hence such rights are not applicable and did the hypocritical atheist in you ever heard of freedom of expression? As for cheer leading that is what you were doing for davidylan till you decided to forsake him like his forsaken man god . . . your logic is too much? yeah right only in coo coo land where fools walk on their head and think with their butt can such claims make sense lol

1) Dead people have rights. You are ignorant and you keep showing it. Dead people can be defamed/insulted and their family/lawyers can sue you.

2) You ignored my other point that destroyed your argument with the holocaust;

logicboy: 1) Many other religions deny Allah. Are you going to call that hate speech? Are they insulting muslims? Christians say Yaweh and Jesus are God. Bhuddists dont believe in a God generally? Are your blasphmeny laws going to be expanded to say that muslims are insulted by Christiand and Buddhists?

It totally destroys your comparison to the holocaust.

My logic is too much for you

. .

vedaxcool: lol so you r now mr. know all? first we can now comfortably say you lie to defend your illogical points as how can you sit down in one corner of your room and say no polygamous marriage is peaceful? that you have never known peace in your life does not mean that others do not enjoy peace? is your point based on researc or a survey or just atheistic bigotry that is rooted in fanatical whining to make your point seem sensible? i degrade women as intimacy gadgets? you are certainly talking trash we associate with atheism, [b]itn was Frederich Nietzsche whom you atheist adore that foolishly thought the laws of God were of no consequence and started jumping from one woman to another only to be struck with syphilis that eventually ended with him running mad, it is again you atheist that find human and if you cannot point to where i degraded women to the level of intimacy gadgets then we might have to start calling you LIARBOY [/b]as you wanabe atheist of nl defy commonsense in methods of argument. Muslim women who understand the deen and have faith in Allah will take their husband decision to marry rather than behave like some atheist lady who has no morals or values to live up to!

1) You talk as if there are no muslim prostitutes. I know many rich muslims that take cocaine and party hard. I know many girls that drink alcohol but in the presence of their family, they act like innocent virgins.

2) As for polygamy, it is a well known fact that all couples have marital problems. Polygamy will always make it worse as there are more than 2 people involved. Simple maths. Simple deduction will tell you that no polygamy is peaceful.

3) I have peace in my life. I can live with Jews, Christians and muslims or buddhists. I do not have to go to mosques or churches. I dont have to pray 5 times. I can eat pork and drink beer. Guess what? I am as healthy as my muslim friends who have been avoiding pork My life is free and peaceful, while you live by rules and laws that make you arrogant to call people like me kaffir(non-believer). I love everyone and guess what? I'm happy that my mulsim girlfriend is a real muslim unlike you because she accepts that not everything in the Koran is true. She can accept that the Koran is wrong to say that she can not marry an atheist. I helped her to stay in school and study when her family members and fellow muslims ignored her. The truth is in human actions and not a book. Even at that, I still did not try to convert her to an atheist.

vedaxcool: what is your business? are a human right enforcer? what particularly is your business? does this maniac know what he is talking about don;t people parents even prevent their wards from getting married if they find the ugly half ( possibly an atheist) character ugly? do people just live without their customs and traditions? lot rubbish coming from these atheists and you claim you are wining when you are just here whining

Liar equality is the key to your lies, which equality are talking about that there is freedom to insult God and no freedom to question or deny the holocaust? behaving like a sheep would not make us have any pity for you. Thank goodness your equality has been shown to be nothing more than hypocrisy. As I have already showed why the Islamic law based on wisdom and common sense made only polygamy legal.

1) You ask what is my business? Muhammed (PBUH) was a smart man, do you know what he said that inspired me?

"Whoever among you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand [by taking action]; if he cannot, then with his tongue [by speaking out]; and if he cannot, then with his heart [by hating it and feeling that it is wrong] – and that is the weakest of faith" (Narrated by Muslim, 49)"


2) When I ask what is the Koran's business with me and my girlfriend or two gay people, I ask because these two things are not evil. If I love a woman (even though she is muslim) and I have the resource to take care of her, why should I not marry her? When did religion become more important that love in marriage? Are there not civil/court marriages? As for gay people, two consenting adults have a right to their privacy and marriage. The irony is that there are so many gay muslims that run to the united states to enjoy their lives. Some of them prominent muslims. What about that Arab prince that had a gay sex slave? Or Udey Hussein that allegedly liked a transvestite?

vedaxcool: mumu, time would be shared amongst the wife, i wonder whether all i have been explaining to you is so difficult for you to even grasp.

Havent I told you that women are not intimacy gadgets? When you love a woman you give a woman all your love and not share it with another woman as if she is some intimacy gadget that you can exchange. You are quite stupid. How many educated women would like to be in such a position. Have you noticed that polygamy excels where there are a lot of uneducated women? Do you think it is fun to be competing for a man's love?

vedaxcool: Truly I would have taken your word for it but because you tell lies to show atheist are whining sorry wining i have to ask where is your source? or are you just imagining. Remember I said the shamless atheist would see nothing wrong with homosexuality but everything wrong with polygamy, and trul Liarboy proved me right despite quitely dropping his defense of butt men antics leaving us to wonder what sort of atheist do we have in nl are they sub standard atheist or just wana be drunks who argue aimlessly? Logicboy makes the last part of the statement ever so true

1) The sex ratio for the entire world population is 101 males to 100 females.[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio

2) A gay man can be polygamous both bisexually and homosexually. Did you think about that? All forms of polygamy is unfair.

3) There are muslim homosexuals that get exposed everytime just like gay pastors. As an atheist, I can only sit back and laugh at the hypocrisy.

4) Stop calling me a bigot when I do not hate anyone. You are bigoted towards homosexuals ironically enough. Douchebag

mkmyers45: Umm..can the op answer this?

op don run commot!

This message needs to get out more. It is like people forget that there is extremism in the church nowadays. What gives pastors the right to beat or kill members of the church

davidylan: My guy just shut up because you really dont understand science. Ode claiming science as if the rest of us are yoruba teachers.
I have 15 published science papers here in the US, what is your own contribution to science? Foolish noise maker.

What branch of science would that be? Claiming that australopithecus is a hoax like a maniacal creationist?

You have nothing.

3 strawmen that you have tried to play on me so far;

1) Fish fossils

2) Lucy is a hoax

3)Impact factor.

Anyone can see that your a deceitful creationist.

Intelligent design has failed you and you're trying to debunk the well grounded evoultion theory

davidylan: Did you read the abstract you posted right there?
First of all - AR has a 2012 impact factor of 1.93 (on this basis i really shld ignore the paper but then let me humor you since i'm sure you have zero idea what impact factor means in terms of scientific reach)
Secondly, read the last two lines of the abstract - the use of the words "may" renders its conclusions really poor.
Lastly, is it your opinion that Australopithecus is a transitional fossil? Are you aware that Lucy is the symbol for the australopithecine fossils and has since been debunked as a fraud?

lol you want to claim that the Australopithecus is a hoax? Many creationist have tried to promote this lie. Lucy is not a hoax, there are many human fossils, of course there would be creationist trolls who would plant fakes for money or to spoil evolution. However, lucy is just one fossil in the australopithecus afarensis. Lucy is not a hoax, it is a real fossil.

Read more on another australopithecus fossil
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selam_(Australopithecus)

You are loking more foolish as you're trying to discredit real fossils.


The impact factor is not useful here. It does not make the findings in the journal fake. Your use of impact factor is another strawman.


Responses

-Because "the impact factor is not always a reliable instrument" in November 2007 the European Association of Science Editors (EASE) issued an official statement recommending "that journal impact factors are used only - and cautiously - for measuring and comparing the influence of entire journals, but not for the assessment of single papers, and certainly not for the assessment of researchers or research programmes".[4]

-In July 2008, the International Council for Science (ICSU) Committee on Freedom and Responsibility in the conduct of Science (CFRS) issued a "Statement on publication practices and indices and the role of peer review in research assessment", suggesting many possible solutions, e.g. considering a limit number of publications per year to be taken into consideration for each scientist, or even penalising scientists for an excessive number of publications per year.(e.g. more than 20). [26]

-In February 2010, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Foundation for Science) published new guidelines to evaluate only articles and no bibliometric information on candidates to be evaluated in all decisions concerning "...performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, [where] increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the h-index and the impact factor".[27] This decision follows similar ones of the National Science Foundation (US) or the Research Assessment Exercise (UK).[citation needed]

davidylan: You mean "Lucy"?

You want to make the creationist claim that the australopithecus afarensis is a fake?

Let me spare you;

davidylan: Ok fo[i]o[/i]l let me educate you again. California gave out gay marriage licenses in 2008; which means the oldest gay marriages in that state are just about 4 yrs old max. Now you want to compare the divorce rate from that limited range to millions of heterosexual marriages many of which are in their 20th yr or more?

Secondly, you rightly said California gave out 11,000 licenses... so according to you, it is ok to compare the divorce rate from an 11,000 sample size to the many millions of heterosexual marriages?

Lastly, can you compare the divorce rate for gay marriages in Idaho to that of heterosexual couples? Hint... there are no gay marriages in Idaho so that comparison is mute. Daft.

1) You got caught lying

2) What's wrong in comparing the last four years of marriage of both types of couples?

davidylan: Hmmm and what has he done differently than what you do when the likes of Mazaje post?

To be honest

1) Why go against a comrade

2) I am supporting science and evidence


Unlike you, I can admit my bias

davidylan: Dont be stup[i]i[/i]d. Anyone can put up a youtube video, even a 5yr old from Sudan. Does that mean i should take youtube videos seriously?
I asked for scientific peer-reviewed journals as evidence that those who put up the video have any idea what they are talking about.

This is the second time you have ignored the journal i put forward. Please kindly reread the post or GTFO because there would not be a 3rd time

davidylan: Daft again. too bad you cant reason.
You were talking about "human transitional fossils" then posted a link that had zero examples for humans but at least 5 for fish? Are you ok upstairs?
If the link was irrelevant then why was it posted here? You thought you were discussing with people who cant think like you?

Fail again..... the link has a part on human transitional fossils

"The hominid Australopithecus afarensis represents an evolutionary transition between modern bipedal humans and their quadrupedal ape ancestors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

Were you too lazy to scroll down?

davidylan: Present these fossils from scientific peer-reviewed journals and lets talk pls. Id[i]i[/i]ots posting youtube videos as evidence? Sheer waste of time.

I have already done that in my previous post. Your ignorance can never be overstated

davidylan: I'm sure if i asked you for a single proof of the above you would be quick to provide it right? And i dont mean a youtube video and google search results pages.

Dumbass, the fossils video that I have been showing is what? Akara and beans?

davidylan: Again just sheer stupidity. You werent talking about fish fossils but talking GENERALLY about transitional fossils? You do know that when you speak "generally", you are also talking about fish too right? Particularly if your link of reference contains at least 5 examples of transitional fossils for fish right?

Am i just guessing or is it that you are relatively very slow intellectually?

Fail again....I was talking about human transitional fossils. The link (not my agument) was generally about transitional fossils.

Why do you grasp at straws so much?

LagosShia: Shia Muslim Interpretation of Prophet Adam (as) In the Garden

firstly,i must say that all muslims do not believe in "original sin" and each person is responsible for his or her own action.

1.) God created Adam to inhabit the earth and reproduce

2.) Adam's stay in the garden was ordained by God to be temporary,regardless of the way that would lead Adam to earth

3.) the tree Adam ate from was a divine plan and design by God to teach Adam.

4.) God telling Adam not to eat from the tree was no a legislative order as there was no shariah then.it was an advicery order.it is like when you tell your kid not to jump from a high table.if he does and injures himself,then he would learn the consequence of falling.but him jumping does not mean he has disobeyed you in a way demanding punishment afterwards.

5.) without Adam eating from the tree,Adam could not have had the power to procreate.therefore the tree is a blessing.

6.) when God told Adam not to eat from the tree or else he would be among the "zalimeen",God was telling him if he eats from the tree he would be burdened and his life of trial on earth will commence.the word "zulm" can also mean burdensome.

7.) God was able to demonstrate to Adam who his real enemy (i.e. the devil) is.Adam had never witnessed anyone lying and the devil was first.after eating from the tree,God also taught Adam the art of repentance (returning to God) when the devil tries to pull you away.from that point on,it became clear to Adam who the enemy was and how he must receive guidance from Allah.

8.) in Shia Islam all prophets,messengers,and divinely appointed imams are innocent and sinless.

Not a bad story. At least, it does make more sense than the bible's version.


Unfortunately.....I am an atheist

Ptolomeus: 1. I thank the moderators for review of the action taken. My only mission in the forum is to give my opinion and exchange information. I'm sorry if there are people who want the only opinion is theirs.

2. Dear friend logicboy: I live in Montevideo, Uruguay (South America). I speak both languages ​​(you know that my English is very bad) and I am at your service to help you in what you deem necessary.
A respectful greeting.

Gracias amigo

toba: why call me a cheerleader? haven't i said the truth?

What would be the truth?

vedaxcool: Ý
Lol! I think lagosshia has damaged your already battered image of a dishonest atheist with ill logics as best! How else can I say this your arguments are not sensible to say the least, we can change point B to, to deny Allah and insult Hm is to say Muslims are lying, and it is to slander muslims their country and their constitution, just like point C we can re-write it as criticizing the jews and german govt account of history not hate speech. Whatever argument u devise if it is rational then blasphemy is not reasonable to say the very least! Your credibility as being one who is an honest questioner has suffered repeatedly
from your ill logics! And by the way are in anyway relatedf to Logic Mind?

You can keep cheerleading lagoshsia as you and lagoshsia both fail

1) Many other religions deny Allah. Are you going to call that hate speech? Are they insulting muslims? Christians say Yaweh and Jesus are God. Bhuddists dont believe in a God generally? Are your blasphmeny laws going to be expanded to say that muslims are insulted by Christiand and Buddhists?

2) Allah is not a human being. I can insult him as he has no human rights.

My logic is too much for you!

vedaxcool: Are you fearful to address the simple points I raised? Cause any sensible and rational discourse involves an exchange of ideas when one side is only interested in repeating himself over and over again then the other side has the logical justification to indicate YOU R NOT ADDRESSSING THE POINTS RAISED.

Please tell me your questions let me answer them so that you will never claim again that I avoided your questions

vedaxcool: And you call yourself logicboy, I have seen polygamous marriages that everyone leaves like Siamese twins . On the other trash u wrote even a atheist bigot like yourself would know that in polygamous marriage there is sharing of time etc I wonder why when one argues with atheists on NL logic is usually the first victim .

. .

That is a lie. Which normal woman likes to be shared like a spare tyre? You degrade women as if they are intimacy gadgets. Sharing of time my black a$$! I am not a bigot. I dont insult muslims, i only insult sexists, polygamists, extremists and wife beaters. I have a muslim girlfriend, remember? My previous girlfriend was a buddhist. There is no polyganmous house that is peaceful. None.

vedaxcool: Sounding frustrated like mega jerk=mazaje? It has just begun. Let me re-engineer the foolishness you wrote what is your business if a man marries two or more wives did he collect your wife? Are they querrelling in your bedroom? or if Islam rejects marriage of our sisters to non muslim na by force make u date our women? When ur argue do so sensibly? And we would say what is your business if we belief in God? Did we use ur brain? . . . You just too easy

Human rights, feminism and equality. Have you heard of those terms? Was I not talking about women and Islam? Should my marriage to my girlfriend bother anyone since it doesnt impinge on anyone's human rights?

1) If a businessman is allowed to marry two or more wives, why shouldnt there be polyandry? A woman should then equally get married to two or more husbands. Equality is the key here. I brought up this argument before in this thread but you ignored it like a douchebag. The simple solution is to make rveryone monogamous or it becomes too complex

2) If a businessman is allowed to marry two wives, the womens' rights are impinged upon as they have to compete for affection, for their husbands time, for a father figure in their childrens' lives etc.

3) Imagine that there are 1,010 men and a 1,000 women (normal ratio of men to women globally) in a muslim village. If every man has a right to two or more women, how many women are need to satisfy all the men? More polygamy = less women for me.

toba: logicboy is equal to opposite of logic. loool Lwkmdie

Ah another cheerleader

not surprised

davidylan: You sound much worse each time you open your gob. I was still willing to cut you some slack if you were generalising on a global scale.

Lets take Los angeles for example... what is the ratio of gay marriages to heterosexual marriages? So you want to compare divorce rates between 100 gay couples married in the last 2-3 yrs to that between over 5 million heterosexual couples?

Let me ask you your own question - are you that dense or did you just not pay attention in stat class? Perhaps you should read up on statistical power and its effect on your null hypothesis.

You keep lying and lying with your false figures

"Same-sex marriage total at 11,000
California reaches the number in three months, surpassing Massachusetts over four years, study finds"

"More gay couples were married in California in the first three months that same-sex marriages were legal than were married in the first four years it was legal in Massachusetts, according to a new study."
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/07/local/me-gaymarriage7

VICAF: Student Proves God’s Existence Scientifically...

http://africanspotlight.com/2012/04/student-proves-gods-existence-scientifically/

You're an assclown.

ea7: Let's start off on a new foot .david, no insults.
I thimk micro and macro evolution are the same, but the terms are dumb.
Micro evolution seems to say little drops of water over time filled a glass, while macroevolution seems to say there was a cup sized drop of water. Am i right or wrong?

You're an embarrassment. Are you a crab? Put plenty crabs in a bucket and as soon one tries to get out another pulls him down.

Why are you talking nonsense? You have given Davidylan another strawman to use. As you can see, he has started to lump us together and say that atheists are confused. You are confused and your buddy Daviddylan is a strawman troll

davidylan: Again daft. Lucy isnt a strawman but a clear case of a fraud that was once touted by renowned evolutionists as the answer to the lack of transitional fossils for man.

Its funny that the very same argument you use here in defence of your spurious claims is the very same one atheists HERE have used against the bible. the argument is that the presence of fake gospels make it difficult to determine in those in the bible should be taken as true! i.e. if the catholic church tossed out the gospel of Judas then on what basis did it preserve the gospel of Luke since they were written at periods far removed from when Christ was on earth?

See, atheists love to tie themselves up in silly knots. One minute they are for one argument and the next they are against.

With that being said - that lucy is a fraud makes it more difficult to accept the validity of the other claims. Piltdown man was in our science textbooks for yrs, unquestioned as a transitional fossil for man until it turned out to have been an elaborate fraud.

Secondly, while you squeal like an idiot that you are not interested in fish fossils, your own wiki link is filled with FISH TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS! Are you sane or just confused?

What do you have to say about the transitional fossils in the video? Are they fake? Are they evidence of evolution?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M96bkdohMZE

ijawkid: @david....thanks my bro...your just on point..


@logic boy....

I wish ur child u'll give birth to will evolve back to an ape....I just wish....so that u'll understand d import of what ur talking about...


Apes till now as we speak give birth to there kinds,while humans do d same also...

All living things give birth to its kind no matter how vast there species are.....

Nothing is evolving into another form..

Humans give birth to humans,apes give birth to apes...

If ur waiting for a million years to see when an ape will turn into a human all in d name of evolution then u'll be as dumb as ur ancestors who started this evolution gibberish...

You are just an ignorant cheerleader. Humans and apes have common ancestors. Humans will not give birth to apes. Humans can only give birth to more evolved humans. Monkeys to more evolved monkeys.

We have a common ancestor as explained by speciation- there was split from our common ancestor into monkeys and humans

davidylan: If you werent as ignorant yourself, why would you merely post a 99-page search result? Seriously? Post just one relevant paper here and use it to state your case.

Here is a relevant Journal on the Australopithecus which talks about the human changes in evolution
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/223418?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=56104598333

brainpulse: THE BOY IS NOT INTELLIGENT AT ALL. YOU ARE USING A HALF BAKED INFORMATION THAT YOU KNOW DID'T AND CAN NOT GIVE ALL ACCOUNTS OF ORIGIN TO DEBUNK ANOTHER FACT. IS THAT NOT ABSURD

You mad? You're angry because your creationism got debunked?

[img]http://www.ranger-forums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=40339&dateline=1335115727[/img]

davidylan: Ok so their feeding habits in india tell us what about evolution?

Bro, is that air i feel between your ears?

Who knows? Man's feeding habits can tell us about human evolution. For one, we have a smaller jaw compared to our ancestors and also we have fewer teeth as our wisdom teeth are not useful. Humans and monkeys have common ancestors

Your ignorance is showing

davidylan: Again daft. Lucy isnt a strawman but a clear case of a fraud that was once touted by renowned evolutionists as the answer to the lack of transitional fossils for man.

Its funny that the very same argument you use here in defence of your spurious claims is the very same one atheists HERE have used against the bible. the argument is that the presence of fake gospels make it difficult to determine in those in the bible should be taken as true! i.e. if the catholic church tossed out the gospel of Judas then on what basis did it preserve the gospel of Luke since they were written at periods far removed from when Christ was on earth?

See, atheists love to tie themselves up in silly knots. One minute they are for one argument and the next they are against.

With that being said - that lucy is a fraud makes it more difficult to accept the validity of the other claims. Piltdown man was in our science textbooks for yrs, unquestioned as a transitional fossil for man until it turned out to have been an elaborate fraud.

Secondly, while you squeal like an idiot that you are not interested in fish fossils, your own wiki link is filled with FISH TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS! Are you sane or just confused?

1) wow....another strawman! Have I ever argued specifically about the authenticity of the Gospels before? No! Furthermore, the Luke and Judas gospel is clearly a hypothetical situation because of the word "if" in that sentence. was using an example tht you would understand. Furthermore, how does that even contradict snything that the other athiest have bashed you with? Did I ever claim that Mark was real/fake? If youcan not see a hypothetical situation for what it is then you are damn ignorant

Are you comparing me with other atheists that have probably bashed you intellectually on the Gospels? Why are you bringing yo lost battles here?

2) I wasnt talking about fish fossils. The link I put was generally about transitional fossils. Keep your trolling and deceitful ways anyone can see that you're a lover of strawmen