₦airaland Forum

Altrarecords:
He guessed two names right

Even if he's capping. It's a decent feat

It's not even about the guesswork. If she were only posturing as an oracle and owning the fact that she's just guessing, it would be a different thing.

But she insists that she has some sort of access to vote related data, so I don't think it's unreasonable for people to expect a 10/10 result.

Again, you have to give it to her. She's a very good troll and I actually enjoy reading her .

Threebear:
Top 3: ilebaye Mercy CeeC

Bottom 3 : Neo , Tolani, seyi

I don't even intend this to be an insult. I'm actually impressed with what you do. You're hands down the biggest troll I've ever come across on this website, and that's saying a whole lot. The way you keep making failed predictions week after week, season after season, and still manage to convince everyone that you're a credible source for voting updates needs to be studied.

Threebear:
Top 3 this week
Mercy
Ceec
Adekunle





Potential candidates that will be evicted by the Jury :
Princess
Tolani
Frodd
Seyi

People that survived but their results weren't impressive:
Benita
Ilebaye
Ike onyema
Pére the quack nurse


Most surprising result:
Cross


I will come back after the eviction 😁

🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡

I know many religious folk, Christians included, who aren't bigots. But it does make a good fig-leaf for those bigots who have the faith as well.

Feature or bug? I bet that relies on the individual believer and what their tolerance or bigotry levels are.

Endtimer:
The above is hardly representative of theistic consensus. You still think God just decides arbitrarily to do X or Y. It isn't God's definition of right and wrong; those are just words created to describe God's characteristics and their antithesis respectively. Also your argument's appeal is essentially ethical (ironic for someone trying to establish moral subjectivity). You must be aware that what the bacteria in the toilet feel has no bearing on moral objectivity. Therefore, you are trying to make us feel sorry for them rather than address the philosophical underpinnings of the moral argument.

The last sentence makes sense. As someone must have already pointed out to you, the answer is: you don't. You have free will to do as you wish, however, you may find that lifelong marriage will fulfill you and that homosexuality will give you diseases; this isn't a form of the prosperity gospel (check out my post on antinomianism for more on that) but it is true in several instances. The reason for this is that:

- You are made in God's image and your nature and mine are corrupted versions of His own. Living like He does therefore strangely provides otherworldly fulfillment.

- God is not only omnibenevolent but omniscient. His knowledge of everything means that we have good reason to trust and emulate Him.

- This is what you want to hear, so I'll be direct: failure to live like God will result in damnation. This and the two above are some reasons to live like God.

This is from the top of my-tired-head so I expect to do a lot of qualifying and explaining when I get back.

Just one question if I may.

Why MUST God exist?

The idea that Biblical rules about slavery were actually God ninja'ing an AFL/CIO thing is laughably amoral, as it reduces chattel slavery to a matter of staving off a strike of houseworkers.

In a weird way I'm enjoying watching these two "moralists" display an utter lack of morality. Slavery? Not a problem. Genocide? We'd like to have a good reason. Bashing out the brains of infants? Pretty much ordered by the source of their "morality".

Neither moral nor immoral, they're simply amoral: a point that has already been made well. Not very different from soldiers simply following orders and legality be damned. They'd be found guilty at Nuremberg, these two.

Endtimer:
The reason everyone here is rightly angered by abuses committed by some professed Christians is that they perceive those crimes as immoral. I’m stating that the reason you all perceive those crimes as evil is because you are culturally Christian.

Maybe. But there are so many non-Christian nations that outlaw the same things that majority-Christian nations outlaw.

As for why I'm angered by Christian abuses, it's because they add hypocritical sanctimony to their crime.

Not only do they screw little boys in the ass, they have the nerve to lecture others on what is and is not moral, and why their own morality is "superior."

Endtimer:
Perhaps those people would like to read about the ancient samurai tradition to sodomize little boys (and only little boys) to see what happens in the absence of the Christian morals they think are natural.

The alleged presence of Christian morality didn't do much to help those poor Catholic altar-boys. Didn't help those poor Baptist kids.

Setting aside the fact that arguing from effect to cause is slipshod thinking, the fact is that millions of people sharing Christian values have committed millions of atrocities. Were your logic sound, your Christian morality wouldn't be exempt from harsh judgement. Fortunately for your faith, your argument is vapid.

Endtimer:
Notice, however that powerful nations send aid to countries in need and armies march to protect people on the other side of the world. This is not “natural” human behavior. It is benevolence borne by the ghost of Christianity in the western world.

We have an example unfolding as we write where the aid is motivated by national interests and not Christianity.

Endtimer:
This much is self-evident or properly basic.

No, it isn't. You'll actually have to demonstrate your point with reasoning or evidence.

Shit like this is why I rarely get involved with religious nitwits.

TenQ:
You fall my hands again big time.

Water molecules now a system!?

Do you understand what you are even writing?

The whirlpool is the system, you dolt. The molecules are the components.

Let me ask you, what is the function of the water system (for every system has a purpose)?
To help you;
A House is a very SIMPLISTIC system!
It has a roof to protect against sun and rain
It has windows for visibility and ventilation .
It has doors for security
It may have specialised compartments as sleeping rooms, kitchen, latest rooms etc

What is the function of "water system"?

Function implies purpose. What if there is no purpose? Does it stop being a system? What is the solar system has no purpose? Does it now become the Solar Grouping instead because it is no longer systematic? You really are straining to sneak your premise in here without demonstrating it.

What if life has no purpose? That's the thought that terrifies you, and that's why you cling to a Bronze Age mythology.

I've ignored the rest of your post because you're thick and tiresome.

TenQ:
DNA is now evolution!?

It's the basis of evolution, yes. You really are uneducated.

The question I asked you which you've been dodging is:

Whenever you see a complex system or meaningful interaction of data and instructions, do you assume it happened by accident or that a non-intelligent source made it?

I've already answered this question a couple of times, which shows how poor your reading comprehension is.

TenQ:
I am not speaking about evolution.

Of course you are; you mentioned DNA.

Evolution starts with a complex system and attempts to see how changes in the genetic information results in changes in the physiological, anatomical etc changes in the organism into something different. No sir. I am not speaking about evolution.

Good because you clearly don't know your ass from third-base about it.

The question I asked was:
Is it possible to see a complex system without an intelligent designer behind it?

Yes, and I've pointed out several examples, to which you run to a dictionary and erroneously claim my examples don't fit. Now you wish to mention DNA as intelligent design but refuse to consider any other possible explanation. I don't care for dishonest conversation.

You see your name written on the beach sand, will you conclude that a crab wrote it?

No. I also would not assume that an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful, outside-the-universe psychopath wrote it there. You know what I'd do? I'd do what you and so many other believers seem incapable of doing; I'd say "I don't know how that got there" and start looking into it. Quit flogging Paley's tired old talking-point. If you cannot see systematic complexity without seeing god, I'd suggest you pull your head out of your ass and look around.

Very simple question!

How very apt.

It's a stupid question that demonstrates how afraid of uncertainty you are.

TenQ:
Khai!
You fall my hand big time. Systematic is not the same as System.

A system is a functional regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole device or organism or equipment.

The water is made of regularly interacting molecules. The crystal developing, ditto. This is you trying to deploy semantics to obscure your absolute lack of evidence for your deity. This is a particularly inane reply.

When you see a cave with living room, bathroom, kitchen, master bedroom each with doors and windows, do you conclude that an erosion made it?

When you're appealing to hypotheticals as "evidence" to support your claim, that pretty much tells me you do not have any real evidence. The real systems here on Earth that you claim point to your god's existence are fairly well-explained by our current knowledge without including what Occam would call your needless entity.

Please tell me you have something more thoughtful than this tripe. I'm finding this conversation tiresome, as if I got stuck back into college with someone who doesn't belong there.

TenQ:
A System is the hallmark of intelligent design.

You ever watch water draining out of a bathtub? It's very systematic, and yet there's no intelligence behind it. It's simply a function of gravity and the Coriolis force.

Have you ever seen crystals form? They're quite organized, but there's no intelligence guiding that formation; instead, it's a function of the location of open valences inside the lattice of atoms or molecules.

So no, a system, or any other example of order, does not necessarily bespeak intelligent design.

TenQ:
Have you ever seen an intelligent communication without an intelligent source?

If you go to the beach and you see written on the sand "TenQ likes Near1", will you conclude that the waves or a crab wrote it ?

Whenever you see systems like a House with functional doors, Windows, kitchen and bedroom, do you think that the storm must have done it!

When you see the DNA (a complex library of data and information), you think this was a random coincidence?

What you are asserting is the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything?

No, that's a clearly-erroneous reading of my words. You have a lot of misconceptions about what I am and am not saying. At no point did I say "nothing created everything". I understand that no one in this conversation, yourself included, knows what happened "prior" to the Big Bang. Just so we're clear, I doubt we will, or even can, ever know. So don't impute to me views I don't hold, okay?

You also seem to lack an even basic understanding of evolution by natural selection. The Watchmaker argument relies upon human amazement and wonder, but it is not a solid foundation for an argument. For that, you'll need to learn about what possibilities exist aside from your magic sky dude is is both the most morally perfect source of morality and the most prolific killer in all history, to believe your Bible.

I'm uninterested in your rehashing arguments I encountered in school decades ago. Go read The Blind Watchmaker or The Panda's Thumb for some evolutionary information. Go read some Stephen Hawking for information about how the laws of the universe behave in an infinite-gravity environment (hint: they don't).

TenQ:
Everything without an physical evidence doesn't exist: is this your point?

When one argument has evidence, and the other does not, I know what I lend credence to. I have beliefs and I have knowledge, but I'm careful to not confuse the two. Beliefs need no evidence, but claimed "knowledge" does. And here you are asserting that humans cannot be moral without your god. If you expect me to accept that without picking your brain, you might be in for a little ride.

Is this a tacit admission that you have no evidence? If so, you should simply short-circuit a long argument and admit as much right now. Because you and I both know you do not have any. And without evidence, I am as entitled to my own perspective as you are.

That's subjectivity, my guy. If you get to make bald claims bereft of evidence, I get to say you're wrong and what can you use to argue that?

10k says you're going to try to prove your case, even as you're here trying to disparage the value of evidence.

Oh, that's right, you don't have any. No wonder.

chryssanthe:
Yeah, it's like they have no self control and the only thing holding them back from murder, rape and robbery is belief in fairy dust.

Atheistic, secular countries have the lowest crime rates in the world.
Theistic countries have the highest crime rates and often their countries are in constant chaos.
The most religious countries in the world have the most poverty. Atheistic countries have the most social secular programs and the least poverty.

In Finland there are no religious private schools. None.... zip....nada.... All schools are secular public schools and everyone, from the very rich to the poor get the same education. About 62% of the Finish population is atheistic and it has one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

From the Federal Brueau of US Prisons, in 2020 there were 139,002 people in federal prisons and 141 of them identified as atheists.
That is 0.1 percent of the federal prison population.

If atheists have no foundation for moral standards then they should be the most represented in prisons and countries with the highest atheist populations should be out murdering each other and eating babies for dinner yet this isn't the case.

Roughly 65% of all Americans identify as Christian. If religion was such a moral lode-star, why do these same Christians complain about high crime? I'd think such a Christian country would be notably safe and loving. Yet they have these high crime rates, and a distinct refusal to help the poor even though Jesus had something to say about a camel and a needle's eye.

If you have to get your morality from command-guidance, how moral are you, really? If it takes the threat of Hell to make you behave, are you really a good person?

I'm glad I don't need that horseshit to make me a decent human. But those who need it, I say put some more Bibles out in hotel rooms. I'm sure that will solve it all.

Tamaratonye1:
This is chronic with respect to your posts. Everyone but you doesn't get it. An objective observer might suggest you get a mirror.

In any miscommunication, there are at least two sources of the problem: the speaker and the listener. In this case, I think the speaker hasn't sized up his audience very well.

chryssanthe:
Clap for yourself!

You just admitted that you and, according to you, all your "brothers in Christ" will be raping your own children, pets and any animal you happen to find "attractive" and eating your neighbours and coworkers, the moment you decide there is no god!

WE, inferior, immoral atheists, do not look to our government to tell us not to rape our children and eat our parents. WE, inferior, immoral atheists, have our own moral compass, yes, informed by society and by humanity as a whole, but still our own, not IMPOSED upon us by laws and government.
You (and, apparently, all religious people) have no morals of their own and need SOMEONE ELSE to tell you not to rape children and eat other human beings.

Congratulations, you're an outstanding human being. You should be proud of yourself.

If Christians need god to be good themselves, by all means they should continue believing. If they're so unempathetic that they cannot arrive at things like altruism and sympathy by themselves, but instead need command guidance to tell them how to behave normally, please, let us not disabuse them of their faith.

All the theists here cannot see a way for morality to arise without their own brand of religious faith. Does that speak about human nature, or does that speak about their own baselines?

As for all of the questions about objective versus subjective morality, uncaused first causes, sex with animals and so on, I personally wonder why theists even ask atheists about such matters. Do they ask other ordinary people about such issues? Shouldn't they be asking such questions of philosophers, physicists, and legal experts?

In other words, we atheists may all have our opinions about such matters, but we don't see them as necessarily related to our rejection of belief in God or gods. Religious people may see them as related, but we are not religious people.

Personally, I consider the idea that unless we accept some so-called objective moral system from an assumed God, we only have our own subjectivities to guide us, to be nonsense. We have our evolved human nature and evolved secular legal systems to depend on, just like theists who only pretend they have something better. What theists really have is a mythology about how morality came to be and a mythology about how the world was created. Atheists have discarded those mythologies.

You don't need crutches if you can walk without them.

Endtimer:
I don’t mean to be petty but I’m starting to feel like I’m bullying you and the other girl.

You needn't worry yourself; I'm no endtimer. Nothing you've written has been hurtful or whatever it is you're feeling guilty about. But I'm not complaining.

Once again, you aren’t addressing a point of mine. The quote you lifted had nothing to do with atheists being more likely to be imprisoned. I didn’t even hint at atheists being less law-abiding than believers of any stripe. That you made a point, appended my name to it and then proceeded to defeat it puzzles me. Did you do it because I said I’d take a break from the thread.

So, you win. Against yourself.

I've addressed your point insofar as I've pointed out that you seem to think that religion provides stability in a society but we can all see that this is not necessarily the case. And nor does atheism mean that morality is all the sudden individual, entirely disparate, and unagreed.

Since you apparently missed my point again, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. If you cannot see the pertinacity of my point, or even see my point at all, which I've already pointed out, then you're going to have to figure out on your own why atheists don't need any gods to tell them how to behave.

Now, if you still need your god in order to understand why murder or rape is bad, by all means, please keep believing. I'm not interested in changed your mind, simply trying to point out why nonbelievers can still maintain involvement in the social contract.

The fact that you cannot see the implications of your own point indicates to me you have not really thought this through very much, or that you're are unable to see any position that you don't actually hold. In either case, it strikes me as pretty useless to try and peel the blinders off you.

Endtimer:
I've read your latest nonsense and I’ve discovered that you have the intellectual abilities of grass. It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s just that I need to explain things to you that everyone should know. Properly basic philosophical fact. For instance, you know nothing of objectivity or morality. You question my reading comprehension in order to make me fix your straw men in the most spectacular display of daftness I’ve experienced this decade.

Oooh, burnsauce. Or something.

To beat you in an argument, I’d need to teach you what I’m talking about; allow you to come to predictable conclusions and prove to you why you’re wrong. You are simply not worth the effort as a human being. I’ll add you to the list of people who can’t make intelligent responses along with the emotional girl who said something about ballet. Good luck to you.

I thought you'd already said you weren't going to answer me? Oh, that's right, you did:

However, I will not persist in arguing with you over your own points.

But here you are still yammering on about how you're so smart, and still not getting or answering my points.

Trust me, if we don't talk again, I will feel no loss. So if you're going to shut up, quit threatening to do so and actually do so already. It's not like I care. Shoo, fly.

Endtimer:
Just as I had asked you to look it up. Here’s one that proves my point and more:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/are-religious-people-happier-healthier-our-new-global-study-explores-this-question/

Findings include:
-Religious people happier and more satisfied with life.
-Religious people less likely to drink and smoke.
-Religious people more likely to vote
Amongst others. Check it out.

Here’s another study showing that religious people live longer:

https://www.apu.edu/articles/why-do-religious-people-live-longer/

To repeat for those who are clearly hard of reading: Those evidence correlation, but not causation.

This is a particularly stupid riposte. There is a clear difference between choosing what I value and choosing my capabilities. Surely you possess the mental acuity to at least see that.

No argument. Just childlike rhetoric. Whatever point you struggled to articulate here, I will address below.

I have emboldened the point, for those who couldn't find a point on a tack.

I can’t come up with something witty to address this straw man (believe me, I’ve tried). I spoke of ultimate value and ultimate purpose and you replied in a completely unreasonable fashion. To clarify, my point was that on atheism, life is ultimately valueless and purposeless, regardless of how you feel or think about it. Attempts to create value for oneself may serve as the mirage/delusion they were meant to, but do not change the fact that life is inherently worthless (this is my point in case you want to know what you should be attacking). The attempt to create ultimate purpose or value is a succinct reminder that there is none. No mention was made about the validity of selective choice or free will. You might want to reassess my point and address it, rather than create your own and then proceed to tear it down.

You've yet to come up with anything at all in the course of this conversation, so don't feel too bad about yourself there. I understood your point. I simply think it's vacuous and self-congratulatory on your part. You're very proud that your faith is what keeps you in line and provides you your values. Bravo. Let's have a little round of applause.

Life is not inherently valueless to the living. I never thought I'd have to actually type out such an obvious banality, but I guess some people have never considered or even noticed that very basic fact. Really, just because your life is meaningless in the absence of your faith doesn't mean that's the case for everyone; but I will say I'm glad for you that your faith prevents you from committing suicide. Whatever it takes, right? I don't go through each day trying to talk myself out of suicide or some crap just because our morality is subjective.

And I did not attribute anything to you other than the obvious: that you hold morality to be absolute, and then point out that your own faith, and therefore your own morality (since your faith is what you credit as the font of morality), is inherently subjective, because you choose to believe.

Are you kidding? What does this have to do with anything? I suspect you didn’t understand any of what I wrote. You’re taking my argument, going off on a tangent and posing as though you’ve accomplished some great feat by attacking your own ideas.

Damn, dude, exactly how unperceptive are you?

That is hardly an unspoken premise. If you could see it then it must’ve been clear. When we speak about moral values, they can only be truly authoritative if provided by God. Moral values cannot be provided by men, the objection to this is simply: “says who?”

-We shouldn’t kill one another. It isn’t good.
-Says who?

Well, this is a silly argument, and I use that word loosely. 1) is that simply repeating a bald claim doesn't lend it any more validity. 2) is that I can demonstrate that morality is subjective simply by pointing to the fact that humans have moral disagreements all the time. That is the very definition of subjectivity.

And, if your god determines what is and is not moral, than that too is subjective.

Authoritarianism is the only way to enforce this baseless system of ethics.

Evidence?

No point made. Whether or not people agree on them is not the argument. The argument is that they do not cohere with objective reality. Collective delusion is what you’re suggesting.

The fact that you missed my point doesn't mean I didn't lay one. Do you need more help reading for comprehension? Perhaps you should get thee to a college for some remedial reading classes. Or, if you'd rather, I'll restrict myself to monosyllables and simple sentences.

Consensus on what is believed to cohere with reality. If you know that there is no foundation for these conventions then there can be no consensus. It’s like a placebo: it only works if you believe it is the real thing. Until you provide an authoritative philosophy of ethics to underlie atheistic morality I’ll assume you know that no actual moral values exist without God; only opinions.

No. You'll need to demonstrate beyond a doubt that the god you claim to found your morality upon actually exists. Lacking that, I'm fully entitled to brush off your moral framework as just as subjective as anyone else's. I believe you simply lack the honesty, or courage, to admit that.

In that case, you are suggesting further collective delusion: “let’s all act in our collective best interests as though morals exist”. People aren’t stupid enough to go along with that and will eventually inquire as to why they shouldn’t act in their best interests to everyone else’s detriment.

This is a clear and deliberate misstatement of my point. Dishonest much?

Yes, all laws are moral principles enforced by power of state. They exist because it is believed that X is good and Y is bad, not because X is beneficial to our society. An easy example of this is slavery.

Wrong. Many laws have no moral dimension at all, say, tax laws, budgetary laws, and so forth.

I’ve addressed your post in its entirety despite it having nothing to do with my points. I’ve also furnished you with links to the relevant studies backing my obvious “misinformation” to quote the writer of the op. However, I will not persist in arguing with you over your own points. Next time, read and understand me and try to address points I’ve actually made. I will not dignify your straw men with my responses any longer.

Yeah, given the fact that you clearly are having issues with English comprehension, I can't really blame you for begging off this discussion. The links you provided did not show causation but only correlation for religion and teh happyfeelz, despite my pointing that out previously. You've misrepresented some of what I have written, and clearly misunderstood more.

Note that I’ve matched the snark and pettiness in your comment and will continue to do so if it persists.

Hey now, we've got a tough guy over here. LOL

TenQ:
You cannot believe Batman because you KNOW that he doesn't exist.

Wrong. I don't believe in Batman because there's zero.point.zero evidence of Batman's existence.

You should have the courtesy of asking me why I believe or don't believe something, rather than telling me my own motivations. That's very rude, but at least we've now confirmed irrefutably that you are comfortable speaking out in ignorance.

Until you KNOW for a fact that God (the UNCAUSED FIRST CAUSE of EVERYTHING) does not exist : every thing is about reasonable excuse making it a BELIEF!

Wrong. It's about weighing the (lack of) evidence and following it to a conclusion. You have no evidence for Batman, and no evidence for your little godling.

I find it hilarious that some educated folks think that Science is the opposite of Religion!

Is Religion opposite in meaning to Science?

Who cares what you think is hilarious about me or anyone else? It's almost as if you think I value your opinion of me. To answer your question directly, the Christian religion is profoundly antiscientific by its own admission and the behavior of many of its adherents. Science, on the other hand, is not terribly anti-religious.

Indeed, there are quite a few scientists who are believers. But when preachers stand up against a scientific discovery, do they present evidence? Generally, no, at least not anything that's worthy of probative value rather than "God says" bullshit.

TenQ:
Objective morality gives a standard from God.

This is begging the question. You're assuming the conclusion you're attempting to demonstrate. Simply repeating your argument doesn't lend it any more validity.

Endtimer:
In fact, I suspect that the prisons in such a society would be filled with people who dared question other people’s ability to do whatever they please. Filled with the exact kind of person who thinks that we all lose if one guy gets to enjoy his fun with a few toddlers. Filled with people who dare tell others what to do even after breaking free of the oppressive shackles of religion.

What's funny is that you'll find atheists underrepresented in American federal prisons:

There were 139,002 people in the U.S. federal prison system last year, and exactly 143 of them identified as atheists. Those self-described atheists made up a mere 0.1% of the federal prison population.

That’s according to a Freedom of Information Act request I filed last summer with the Federal Bureau of Prisons that arrived earlier this month.

I made similar requests in 2013 and 2015 and the numbers have been roughly the same each time, suggesting this proportion isn’t changing even as the percentage of atheists in the general population steadily, yet slowly, inches upwards. More significantly, it means our presence in U.S. federal prisons is significantly lower than what we find in the general population. (Last year, a Pew Research Center analysis found that self-identified atheists made up 4% of the population.)

https://onlysky.media/hemant-mehta/in-20...opulation/

So much for the notion that atheists are more prone to criminality, all other things being equal.

TenQ:
Unfortunately, Atheism is a belief system of choosing to disbelief in Deities.

How can one believe or Disbelief something you have sufficient evidence for.

I don't disbelieve in the existence of Superman or Batman. I know both do not exist.

When you understand why you cannot believe in Batman, you'll understand why I cannot believe in your god.

We can address your silly claim that atheism is a "belief system" quite simply: tommyrot. The word means nothing more nor less than lack of faith in any deities.

The question is:
Do you know if God exists or not!?

I don't know, but I find what passes for evidence as so laughably thin that it seems to you have to suspend rational faculty in order to accept it.

Exactly the point!
The OP is using a Strawman here: how can a fallible science prove or disprove the existence of God with certainty?

There's a few problems with this statement. Being fallible is not the same as being useless, though; that's your first misapprehension. Here, let's do an experiment: turn off your computer and pray to your lord that your thoughts may be posted on this forum without any devices. "Well, that's stupid!" you're probably saying, and you'd be correct. Because despite its fallibility, science has come up with astonishing insights, and our knowledge continues to advance based on its findings. And applied science works.

The same cannot be said of religious faith. That's why when you want to shitpost this garbage, you turn to science and not your Batman: because you know your Batman cannot get a goddamned thing posted.

efficiencie:
As far as morality goes, you can thank evolution for that. We are social animals, and our societies benefit when people respect each other's life and property.

This is according to which research? Can you explain how morality evolved? At what point did phytoplanktons down to apes, your earliest ancestors begin to respect each other? On what basis did you ancestors determine what is right and what is wrong and how was it as a result of evolution? Your answer begs more question.



It's inborn -- we are actually programmed to be good,

If we are programmed to be good then there must be a programmer. You may want to say that the programme evolved but that would be you shooting yourself in the foot because that would mean that the programme in humans defining their behavioral patterns is capable of learning. A programme that learns is much more sophisticated than a mere set of instructions that would most certainly necessitate a highly intelligent designer. So you just refuted yourself with this statement.

Evolution is not random, what works gets passed down.
Can you explain how life moved from inanimate to animate? Millions of years after the big bang matter was inanimate. So tell me how intelligence, emotion and life started. Also tell me how conscience evolved and also tell me how people are able to have NDEs and ESPs? And since there is evidence of people being conscious even though they are in coma you have to also explain how consciousness is defined and how it evolved.

it occurs naturally as each type of life evolves to fit in its niche.

Can you define "naturally"? Are you stylishly trying to say "order" showed up from nowhere? If order does not require intelligence then it showed up by random unaided and unguided processes. This is the same as saying a software like Microsoft Office suite was written by a billion monkeys typing away on a coordinated system of a billion computers working for a billion years. Absolutely ridiculous. Order cannot be generated without intelligence.

I don't know where matter, space and time originate, but I am sure we will have a proper answer eventually. Science is working on it. Not everything has to have an immediate answer, it took us many centuries to learn as much as we know now.

There is a lot science still hasn't unravelled. Just recently the JSW telescope is returning images indicating the big bang may be entirely false. The big bang community is fighting to explain the puzzling images they are getting. So your science still has a lot to answer. And guess what "the theory of evolution" is still a theory!

This is just shameless Sealioning.

What is Sealioning?
Sealioning refers to the disingenuous action by a commenter of making an ostensible effort to engage in sincere and serious civil debate, usually by asking persistent questions of the other commenter. These questions are phrased in a way that may come off as an effort to learn and engage with the subject at hand, but are really intended to erode the goodwill of the person to whom they are replying, to get them to appear impatient or to lash out, and therefore come off as unreasonable.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sealioning-internet-trolling

This isn't directed at me but I'll take a shot anyway

TenQ:
1. It would be impossible for science to prove or disprove God because the frame of reference or operations are completely different.

Yeah, got it. It's something most of us including myself, realized for several decades now, thanks.

2. What would be your gain if a Christian converts to Atheism?

Speaking for myself, I don't personally try to deconvert Christians. By the way, atheism is not a belief-structure to which people convert.

3. You seem to believe in the infallibility of science to your peril. Science is subject to the bias of the interpreter of available data.

Who here has said that science is infallible? Indeed, one of its strengths is that it corrects its own errors.

Endtimer:
You mention Europe; the continent responsible for spreading religion around the world.

The ignorance encapsulated in this one sentence is stunning.

Endtimer:
This answer is particularly easy to debunk. On first reading it I assumed you made a few points. Now I believe otherwise.

I’ll address it backwards:
- Yes, increased unbelief is correlated with decreased rates of personal fulfillment. We are all aware that the west is experiencing reduced religious involvement. Cursory internet searches will furnish you with associated data on decreased personal happiness. Your question is therefore pointless. Whether it is directly caused by or just happens to coincide with is beside the point.

I had asked you for a source. You haven't provided any. Why should I lend some complete stranger credence?

Your point about finding your own purpose is subjective and ultimately inconsequential. The purpose you pick for yourself only has no actual value. You might as well decide to become a superhero tomorrow.

This is a particularly stupid riposte. There is a clear difference between choosing what I value and choosing my capabilities. Surely you possess the mental acuity to at least see that.

Further, your dismissing of the subjective choices we all make rather undercuts your own faith, because that too is a subjective choice you have made about which credo you will follow. As such, by your own logic your choice is just as insipid as mine.

The value is subjective and not ultimate. On theism, it is believed that ultimate value can only be given if a thing has a purpose for which it is created. On atheism life is the result of mindless chance irrespective of the illusion of purpose with which you preoccupy yourself. Such a life has no ultimate value; only one that you make up as you go.

I really don't care what theists believe about me or my outlook. I'll let you know if that changes, but don't hold your breath. And again, your choice to believe in your god is equally subjective. Or, if you are compelled by objectivity, then you've just undercut free will. Congratulations.

Further, this means that the atheist has no qualms against suicide. Life is random and valueless.

Again, your unspoken premise is that values may only be handed down from on high. In that sense, you are simply reiterating your argument, not supporting it.

In fact, all forms of crime lose their moral reprehensibility. To prevent this would require collective delusion. The atheist society would require that it’s members all believe something that isn’t true for the sake of living together. Everyone would have to believe certain things are good and others bad just so that they can coexist.

This is one big non sequitur. Just because values are subjective, that doesn't mean that people cannot agree upon many, most, or all of them. Sloppy thinking on your part does not an argument make.

Lastly, religion does provide the only consistent basis for society. That is to say, religious societies operate based on what coheres with reality whereas atheist societies depend on consensus.

All societies depend upon consensus regarding basic mores. And quite frankly, the idea that religious thought coheres with reality is laughable.

They decide what is reality and act as though this delusion is correct. This is exceedingly clear when it comes to morality and legislation which are inextricable.

You think morality and legislation are inextricably linked? Are you saying that all laws have a basis in morality?

Now, I've already asked for sourcing for your bald claims, which sourcing is noticeable by its absence in this second pile of bald assertions. I assume that your tacit refusal to do so means that you have none. If I'm wrong on this, feel free to show that, by providing said sources.