₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: Haba ooman, this 'plenty' post? Don't tell me you allowed the 'exchanges' in Muskeeto's 'suicide' thread get to you?

'Things' really get to me. I spend valuable time on nairaland, i cant afford some pig-ignorants to toy with laws of nature.

Striktlymi and Davidylan once directly and indirectly pointed to me that not all atheist/agnostics are intelligent and that not all are scientific. Striktlymi went on to say that many people become atheists for many different reasons other than science/PHILOSOPHY, the view which I contended. Well, after my encounter with atheists/agnostics here, I am helpless and am sorry but you are right afterall.

Some atheists/agnostics are just tired of life, some just want freedom from moral laws and scruple among many other insane reasons.

This does not immediately suggest that Theists are more intelligent as sagacity is not one of the properties of being a Theists in the first place. It just shows that "pls people, do not take atheism/agnosticism to be synonymous with intelligence/KNOWLEDGE always, you will be disappointed".

Am an atheist and was disappointed at the level of comprehension of so called atheists/agnostics of their environment, so I thought I should apologize to Striky and Davidylan for my misconstruction.

Bobbysworld28: Ok,
I give up. All animals r atheists. Same 4 all inanimate objects.
Happy now?

When that includes all new born human babies, yes I will be happy.

striktlymi: Very funny!!!

Tell me about it.

Reyginus: What is the point of this forum if actually have all the answers, prof?

Sorry but I think that the purpose of this forum is debating not lecturing, you wanna learn, go to school!

Reyginus: That's not my question. Let me make rephrase it . Does entropy occur at equillibrium? Yes or No.

Did you read my quote of wikipedia at all, it has all the answers to your puerile questions.

mazaje: All hail ooman. . .I am really laughing out loud at this one. . .

ok then, pls refer to my quote of wikipedia, how does that sound?

Reyginus: Its high time, we xrayed the 2nd law of thermodynamics in relation to the op. You game?

simply refer to my quote of wikipedia, i dont have all day teaching you what you should have been taught in school!

striktlymi: If you ever have experienced internal struggles or the 'darkness of the soul' you wouldn't have made that comment.

Story Story!!. Its story time, pls tell me about that!!

After quoting wikipedia, which has justified me, i shall take a rest.

see you all later. Any questions? refer to my quote of wikipedia. It said everything just as i have said it, but much more detailed

Reyginus: Lol. My man, their is a difference between order and equillibrium.

SHUT UP AND REFER TO MY QUOTE OF WIKIPEDIA.

Reyginus: Na wa o. How can death increase entropy when by your definition, at death everything goes into equillibrium?

METABOLIC EQUILIBRIUM, DID YOU READ THAT?

Since i do not have all day to debate a simple basic law with you, i will leave you with Wikipedia:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic [size=15pt]equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy[/size]. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind are impossible.

The second law is an empirically validated postulate of thermodynamics, but it can be understood and explained using the underlying quantum statistical mechanics, together with the assumption of low-entropy initial conditions in the distant past (possibly at the beginning of the universe). In the language of statistical mechanics, entropy is a measure of the number of microscopic configurations corresponding to a macroscopic state. Because equilibrium corresponds to a vastly greater number of microscopic configurations than any non-equilibrium state, it has the maximum entropy, and the second law follows because random chance alone practically guarantees that the system will evolve towards equilibrium.

The second law is thought to be the source of the direction of time. It is an expression of the fact that over time, differences in temperature, pressure, and chemical potential decrease in an isolated non-gravitational physical system, leading eventually to a state of thermodynamic equilibrium.

The second law may be expressed in many specific ways, but the first formulation is credited to the French scientist Sadi Carnot in 1824 (see Timeline of thermodynamics).

Pls continue your lecture here: [size=15pt]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics[/size]

Reyginus: Lol. Are you encarta? By the way, it has nothing to do with what we are saying.

once again, sorry if i miss the op

mazaje: ooman is another wild card. . .The atheist version of OBADIAH and Bugzee. . .

or perhaps you all lack basic understanding of the world around you. Now i believe that not all atheists/agnostics are intelligent, some are just tired of life, like Muskeeto.

Reyginus: Beautiful nonsense! To even suggest a thing as that, the route or analogy to tackle the op's case is unnecessary, less with your fashion, the words in their purest form lose meaning, as we have witnessed.

sorry if i missed the OP. i immediately referred to the effect of death on the environment, according to the second law of thermodynamics.

As i have said, if he could'nt find reason to live, that is his problem, the universe own no one sense of comfort.

This is why death exist in the first place, to ensure balance of the ever dividing, hence reproducing DNA molecules

striktlymi: Well my dear ooman, this is the very reason why I say Atheists should leave the aspect of interpreting sacred scriptures in their analysis...

You really need to understand that what you quoted is a practical look at the mortality of man and the frailty of life...the author is not implying that the animals and humans are the same in all things...he was trying to relate his struggles about the 'vanity' of life and what we should consider important...verse 19 of that chapter:


Ecclesiastes 3
19 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath[c]; humans have no advantage over animals. Everything is meaningless.

is a summary of this internal struggle of the author cause life seems so meaningless when it is looked at from the material point of view...the bold suggests that humans and animals would live and die without any hope of a resurrection but this we know is not what the author knows to be true...

He brought this into proper perspective in the final verse of his book:


Ecclesiastes 12
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

animals are not subject to the judgment of God but man is which shows that he believed firmly in eternity as against his earlier struggle which suggests that he is confused about it:


Ecclesiastes 3
21 Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?”

If the 'spirit' of man goes downwards there can be no judgment as it is the case for animals.

This is his conclusion on the matter:


Ecclesiastes 12
13 Now all has been heard; here is the conclusion of the matter: Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the duty of all mankind.

The duty of man cause everything we do will be accounted for on the day of judgment...this same judgment is not applicable to animals cause their 'spirit' goes 'downwards' into the earth.

I doubt that a man, as intelligent as Solomon came to that conclusion, i think that those verses were added by Constantine when he compiled the Bible. And if Solomon really add those verses, then he must have done that because of the view of his days. They really contradicted everything he wrote in his previous chapters.

MacDaddy01: 1) Why must we conserve the energy? All that matters is that there is energy in us and when we die the energy goes to the soil and nature. The fact remains that the energy remains in the ecosystem. No waste, no increase

2) Millions of babies die from natural causes and birth complications and have done so since the beginning of humans. Living longer has nothing to do with the cosmos being in balance.


Sharaap with your fake science

but then, we still have billions of humans alive and even billions and trillions of cells living.

Let me ask you, as an atheist, why do you think life evolved? or as some atheists say, do you believe that there is no reason for reactions in nature? that all things are purposeless and without order? IF YES, THEN YOU MUST BE REALLY INSANE.

I am sorry if i have lost the OP, but i refer to 2nd law of thermodynamics and that law is infallible, no matter what you think, atheists and theists alike.

mazaje: What is ooman on about?. . . .

2nd law of thermodynamics!!

Reyginus: And this relates to the op how? Don't tempt me.

sorry if i miss the OP, but i am contending the fact that death increases entropy.

Muskeeto's feeling or reason to commit suicide is his own personal business, i do not care about that, as i have quote" The universe owe no one a sense of comfort and hope".

Find your motivation.

I am only giving reasons why he should not commit suicide if he loves the cosmos.

Reyginus: Yes, I did. In my formative years. Perhaps I don't understand. Do you mind lending a hand. *I just hope it addresses the op*

I DID, just below the quote you quoted! I quoted encarta!

Reyginus: ooman, I'm still finding it difficul to see how these two sentences follow. That you even used 'Beside' as the conjunction has already misaligned them out of concord. Do you understand?

"Suicide could mean death before reproduction", i was supposing Muskeeto is not married yet and that if people were to start committing suicide, the unmarried population (THOSE WITHOUT CHILDREN) would be affected most, hence "death before reproduction".

MacDaddy01: Bullsh!t.......suicide at 90 years old nko?


Abeg, commot with your false theory!

WHY ARE YOU ALL BLIND, ATHEISTS AND THEISTS ALIKE. I THOUGHT ATHEISTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE INTELLIGENT ONES. I WAS WRONG!!
DID YOU NOT SEE THIS

OOMAN: [size=20pt]Besides, if people live longer, they would conserve their energy longer, this gives the cosmos more time to stay in balance.[/size]

A fundamental issue addressed in cosmology is the future of the universe—whether the universe will expand forever or eventually collapse. The first case (eternal expansion) is known as an open universe, and the second case (eventual collapse) is known as a closed universe. A closed universe would require sufficiently high density to cause gravity to eventually stop the universe’s expansion and begin its contraction. Such a collapse would require a deviation from Hubble's law, so observational cosmologists try to observe the distances between very distant galaxies and Earth using methods other than measurement of redshifts. The scientists can then compare these distance measurements with the galaxies’ redshifts to see if Hubble’s law holds or not. In the late 1990s astronomers compared the redshifts of supernovas in distant galaxies. Surprisingly, distant supernovas were slightly fainter than had been expected. This result was tentatively interpreted as an acceleration of the expansion of the universe. Astronomers were so surprised by the suggestion that the universe might be accelerating its expansion that they attempted to find other explanations for the relative dimness of distant supernovas, such as absorption by dust. By a few years into the 21st century, however, these other conceivable explanations had been ruled out, and the accelerating universe concept became widely accepted. The search continues to discover more and more distant supernovas.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Reyginus: Hehe. Input=output. A computer?
Supernova. A gigantic explosion, and neutron stars=extinction=-equillibrium?
Lolololol. Truth be told, this is hogwash. Chineke me o! Nairaland sef!

your lack of understanding is alarming!

pls read a little more about theories of cosmos extinction in some 10 billion years, as predicted by particle physicists.

Reyginus: What does this mean?

it means

ooman: Besides, if people live longer, they would conserve their energy longer, this gives the cosmos more time to stay in balance.

always afford to finish reading what is presented to you.

Reyginus: Let me help you, Mr scientist. On a brief note, equillibrium tends to define a state of a system where their is no change in the properties, with respect to time.
ooman, the period anything goes into equillibrium with some other thing, it presumes what it is going into is at zero value. The same applies here. What I think should be the right word here is 'state'.
Otherwise, entropy and equillibrium are not the same thing. Deal with this, how can anything exhibit entropy at equillibrium, when entropy is zero at equillibrium?

you seem to forget that equilibrium is input=output. Nature stays in balance when its energy rate is constant, at equilibrium, when input=output at the same rate, when animal killed FOR FOOD is at the same rate as animals REPRODUCED. But if there is a catastrophe, the like that could result from suicide, then input would no longer equal output. Balance will be breached. Entropy will increase, this will lead to explosion, like the supernova. Extinction is certain for the cosmos.

I am not saying suicide will immediately lead to extinction of cosmos but it will add to it, just as CO2 from our cars and generators add to global warming.

striktlymi: The fact that a creator decides to do something out of his sovereignty does not imply that he is not perfect...its just like saying that if Goodluck Jonathan decides to take a cab from Aso Rock to Lagos then he cannot afford to take a plane...this does not follow in the least.

Edit: He cares about the future of man and that is why we are built to adapt to changing situations.

Pls dont bring Goodluck into this, dont compare snail with cheetah!!

You obviously do not know what genetic changes do to species, it causes the extinction of old species and evolution of new. When it does not cause evolutionary change, it causes diseases and death. I RETAIN THAT IF GOD CARES ABOUT HIS CREATIONS, HE WOULD NOT USE A MECHANISM THAT WOULD EXTINCT THEM TO RETAIN THEM.

striktlymi: I am beginning to suspect that you want this conversation to turn 'left' by misinterpreting my words.

I never rejected the link of homology to evolution...Remember that I also accept some aspect of evolution (at least those aspects that are purely scientific).

IN YOUR OWN WORDS

striktlymi: [size=15pt]Homology in itself is a fact but its link to evolution is yet to be proven as a scientific fact.[/size]

musKeeto: bro, if the argument is made any simpler, it would be an insult to retards..

Ooman dey fall hand..

your lack of knowledge of your environment is alarming!

MacDaddy01: So wait, what does it then matter if people commit suicide? What matters is the death not the mode of death in this case. Since death is inevitable, you complaint about suicide fails.

death is inevitable, but suicide could mean death before reproduction, this is the only difference. Besides, if people live longer, they would conserve their energy longer, this gives the cosmos more time to stay in balance. This is what second law of thermodynamics is all about.

I dont care about his feelings, as Dawkins said" The universe owe no one a sense of hope or comfort". I only care about living systems fulfilling the purpose of their evolution.

This is why life evolved in the first place, to conserve energy, which is what we do best when we stay alive!