₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
I ignored the specifics of your quote because of it's absurdity. The person who made it likely made use of numerous tools developed from scientific discoveries like rode in a car, sat in a chair, used a microphone, shaved with electricity, then says how science is struggling against the supernatural, when the truth is supernaturalists and scientists are perhaps struggling against each other. And indeed they are. In Nigeria, supernaturalists are winning, which is why we have lots of temples in which to worship the supernatural, and a lack of science temples (hostels , factories etc) in which to worship science, and we can all see the result. 56% of Nigerian youths get to worship the supernatural while begging for their daily bread! I guess many don't understand that when God is written to have said "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground", you are being told to use your senses (science) to make the ground more profitable for you.

Don’t you think this is an absurd response to Lewontin’s quote?

I don’t think you scratched it.

You maybe right to say religion and science keep clashing. But the clash of religion and science is just superficial compared to the gap between science and atheism.

Again, I don’t think you understand what that quote meant.

Workch:
so what’s your argument all about?

That's the thing, Work, and why I have been nicely amused by your only tool is a hammer attitude.

I am not arguing, Workch. I am discussing with the hope of exchanging and sharing ideas and knowledge. Unfortunately, as I keep repeating to you with the hope you'd see, your hammer is to argue, which unfortunately blinds you to understanding. You may want to go back and read over our discussion. It is after all evident.

Workch:
If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

You made the claim and you must provide the evidence that your imaginary sky friend exist else he exist only in your head and that of others who share your notion.

Don’t come here committing fallacy of complex questions, I am not going to follow you through that fallacious route. Why is it hard to give testable evidence for your god? Why?

It’s simple, you claim god exist, prove it. Else he’s another version of Flying Spaghetti Monster

If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

Is that the truth? Is it a scientific truth? Can it be empirically tested? It cannot. So your speech here cannot be trusted. Make another attempt.

I doubt you exist and can be trusted cos I haven’t seen proof of your consciousness.
I doubt your logic here is valid and can be trusted. I haven’t seen it’s empirical proof.

In short, you don’t exist. Your logic don’t exist. They cannot be trusted. Because you don’t have empirical proof for them.
You are just like a spaghetti

budaatum:
See what you describe as Science, lol, big bang, micro evolutuon, etc. Were they replicated in a lab too?

Science, the use of your senses, is a tool to seek understanding. A theory is first presented then further information is sought. An example is the world was flat until subsequent observation found it was not flat. Unfortunately, human senses are rarely and slowly used, so knowledge acquisition is gradual.

There was a time when 'Scientists' came up with a theory that states that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

Subsequent observation and theories have come up with alternative ideas like when God supposedly said "Let there be Light", there was a big bang then there was light. But you need to learn to separate hypothesis and theories from the observed facts. A scientist would tell you big bang is a theory, one of many.

You might want to start by observing how many science produced products you use today to plot how right human use of science profits you. Without it, humans can not possibly fulfil the command to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth", and therefore be blessed, and go to Mars and Jupiter and Uranus too,

Just observe a country like Nigeria to see how a negative attitude towards science holds us back because we would rather believe than scientifically 'use our God given senses'. But as this thread shows, eyes are opening, thank the Gods.

Is the Big Bang science theory science or not? Does science not assume the sun will always rise and set everyday? Does science not believe and assume that the laws of gravity will always be there? Is macroevolution not science?

What exactly is your point here?

Nothingserious:
Don’t you think this is an absurd response to Lewontin’s quote?

I don’t think you scratched it.

You maybe right to say religion and science keep clashing. But the clash of religion and science is just superficial compared to the gap between science and atheism.

Again, I don’t think you understand what that quote meant.

Its not easy to discuss without defining terms. Take my definition of science as the use of the supposed God given senses. If you were not meant to use the senses why would you even have them? Also see how I have presented "in the beginning" as an early scientific theory.

Now for atheism. It used to mean those who did not believe what was believed in Athens, the Land of the Gods. By Christ's time, it meant those who did not believe in the God of the community they are in.

If I told you Jesus was crucified for not believing what was believed in his community, I will expect you to argue that Jesus was not an atheist while I would state that he was clearly atheistic to the beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Religion and science do not clash as much as you claim. What clashes is those who (religiously) believe, with those who are willing to scientifically use their senses to ask and knock and seek so they may actually learn and know. Its like a battle between, willing to remain ignorant naked and enslaved Adam, and use her senses to gain wisdom and her own freedom from slavery Eve. A nation built by Adams will differ to one built by Eves, you'd find.

Nothingserious:
Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew ( who later jettisoned atheistic ideas and embraced theism) could not categorically say there is no God.

Who are you to say so?

You can’t disprove it. Just rest.

We don’t know you

Who is 'we'?

Nothingserious:
Is the Big Bang science theory science or not? Does science not assume the sun will always rise and set everyday? Does science not believe and assume that the laws of gravity will always be there? Is macroevolution not science?

What exactly is your point here?

The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang?wprov=sfla1

You'd think the important word in the above is theory, but it actually is "prevailing". The prevailing theory used to be ”God said" until 'Jesus the Logos' opened eyes.

As for "assume the sun will always rise and set everyday", I think it is human beings who assume that based on the evidence so far witnessed which kind of makes one assume the sun will never take a day off. When the sun takes a eay of scientist will jettison always rise and set everyday, or be ridiculed like flat earthers are.

Science does not believe, is my point. It has prevailing theories which it assumes might be correct or found wanting in the future when more knowledge is acquired. That after all is the lesson of history, that science is not some religion that must be believed when evidence suggests otherwise.

It's of no use

budaatum:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang?wprov=sfla1

You'd think the important word in the above is theory, but it actually is "prevailing". The prevailing theory used to be ”God said" until 'Jesus the Logos' opened eyes.

As for "assume the sun will always rise and set everyday", I think it is human beings who assume that based on the evidence so far witnessed which kind of makes one assume the sun will never take a day off. When the sun takes a eay of scientist will jettison always rise and set everyday, or be ridiculed like flat earthers are.

Science does not believe, is my point. It has prevailing theories which it assumes might be correct or found wanting in the future when more knowledge is acquired. That after all is the lesson of history, that science is not some religion that must be believed when evidence suggests otherwise.

Scientists are humans and form their theories from philosophical assumptions after SOME testing. There is no scientific law or theory that can be empirically proven. None. But if you have scientific proof for any scientific law or theory, pls share with us.

Again, science is practiced by human scientists and the human scientists make all the claims of science on behalf of science. If they fail when the sun stops rising and setting at the times known to humans and thus changing the scientific landscape, they will take the blame on behalf of science. Have the human scientists nig taken credits for all beautiful inventions of science?

So, science is based on beliefs and assumptions.
The assumptions are based on the predictability and intelligibility of nature made possible by fine-tuning.

Or are you already dichotomizing science from scientists? Are you saying the Big Bang, the scientific assumptions on origins, the scientific assumptions on origin of the laws of nature, the scientific assumptions on macroevolution etc aren’t part of science?

HellVictorinho:
Who is 'we'?

We know Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew, Stephen Hawkings. Who are you? Your opinion doesn’t count really

Nothingserious:
If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

Is that the truth? Is it a scientific truth? Can it be empirically tested? It cannot. So your speech here cannot be trusted. Make another attempt.

I doubt you exist and can be trusted cos I haven’t seen proof of your consciousness.
I doubt your logic here is valid and can be trusted. I haven’t seen it’s empirical proof.

In short, you don’t exist. Your logic don’t exist. They cannot be trusted. Because you don’t have empirical proof for them.
You are just like a spaghetti

Everything can be tested if it exist

budaatum:
Its not easy to discuss without defining terms. Take my definition of science as the use of the supposed God given senses. If you were not meant to use the senses why would you even have them? Also see how I have presented "in the beginning" as an early scientific theory.

Now for atheism. It used to mean those who did not believe what was believed in Athens, the Land of the Gods. By Christ's time, it meant those who did not believe in the God of the community they are in.

If I told you Jesus was crucified for not believing what was believed in his community, I will expect you to argue that Jesus was not an atheist while I would state that he was clearly atheistic to the beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Religion and science do not clash as much as you claim. What clashes is those who (religiously) believe, with those who are willing to scientifically use their senses to ask and knock and seek so they may actually learn and know. Its like a battle between, willing to remain ignorant naked and enslaved Adam, and use her senses to gain wisdom and her own freedom from slavery Eve. A nation built by Adams will differ to one built by Eves, you'd find.

Please what is your worldview?
You aren’t arguing like an atheist.
Maybe I will comment further when I know your worldview. I am a Christian and I believe Christianity and science do not clash.I believe God and science are not alternatives.

budaatum:
That's the thing, Work, and why I have been nicely amused by your only tool is a hammer attitude.

I am not arguing, Workch. I am discussing with the hope of exchanging and sharing ideas and knowledge. Unfortunately, as I keep repeating to you with the hope you'd see, your hammer is to argue, which unfortunately blinds you to understanding. You may want to go back and read over our discussion. It is after all evident.

Ok. I didn’t see any evidence in your conversation. What is your problem?

budaatum:
Work! You jumped! First, you need to begin with What is God?

Searching for an answer to that question is a journey every serious atheist must go through instead of theistically accepting what they are religiously conditioned to believe. One can tell those who haven't gone on the journey because they'll say they "don't believe in the existence of God" without quite understanding their belief is as inconsequential as those who believe in the existence of God, as both think what they believe in their head is real.

After you have an answer to What is God, you and I can then discuss the God of buda. Meanwhile however, by buda's fruits would you know buda's God. Fruits, in case you are not aware, means, evidence.

P.s. I am assuming your name is a true indication of who and what you are. A worker, as opposed to a lazy believing fuq.

Another god lover with long epistles but no evidence.

I was hoping that you will just say; this is the evidence, go and test it.

Ishilove:
Smh. This is the kind of arguments Apostle Paul warned us against

Its an argument because some of us won’t swallow the extraordinary stories without evidence.

It will always be an argument until evidence comes

Workch:
Everything can be tested if it exist

Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

[s]

Nothingserious:
Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

i will respond to you when I see evidence for your god. No long unnecessary stories

Workch:
Another god lover with long epistles but no evidence.

God lover, is a new one. Hopefully, you know it means, lover of one's fellow human beings, because that is what the God books teach.

Nothingserious:
We know Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew, Stephen Hawkings. Who are you? Your opinion doesn’t count really

Who is 'we'?

budaatum:
God lover, is a new one. Hopefully, you know it means, lover of one's fellow human beings, because that is what the God books teach.

ok thanks

Nothingserious:
Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

Same set of questions because he has no evidence for his blind believes.

Blind follower of faith

Workch:
Same set of questions because he has no evidence for his blind believes.

Blind follower of faith

Hahaha!
I guess you are stuck. Any day you feel like considering and responding, we talk. Until then, you haven’t earned the right to ask anyone about proofs for a supernatural and immaterial God.

Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

Nothingserious:
Hahaha!
I guess you are stuck. Any day you feel like considering and responding, we talk. Until then, you haven’t earned the right to ask anyone about proofs for a supernatural and immaterial God.

Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

You are the person stuck in deluded beliefs created from Stone Age. You should be ashamed of yourself for that

More ashamed than you believe it like a zombie without evidence. Seems like ancient humans who made this up are even smarter than you

Nothingserious:
If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

Is that the truth? Is it a scientific truth? Can it be empirically tested? It cannot. So your speech here cannot be trusted. Make another attempt.

I doubt you exist and can be trusted cos I haven’t seen proof of your consciousness.
I doubt your logic here is valid and can be trusted. I haven’t seen it’s empirical proof.

In short, you don’t exist. Your logic don’t exist. They cannot be trusted. Because you don’t have empirical proof for them.
You are just like a spaghetti

Workch:
Everything can be tested if it exist

Deuteronomy 6:16
'Never test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.'

Matthew 4:7
'Jesus responded,
“The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”'

Workch , beloved, God is an exception to the 'Everything can be tested if it exist' rule

BassReeves:
Deuteronomy 6:16
'Never test the LORD your God as you did at Massah.'

Matthew 4:7
'Jesus responded,
“The Scriptures also say, ‘You must not test the Lord your God.’”'

Workch , beloved, God is an exception to the 'Everything can be tested if it exist' rule

Never test your lord because we don’t want you to know that he doesn’t exist

You are gullible

Workch:
[s]Never test your lord because we don’t want you to know that he doesn’t exist [/s]

You are gullible

You're deluded. Imagine you, a handiwork of God, denying who your Creator is

Workch:
[s]i will respond to you when I see evidence for your god. No long unnecessary stories

Don’t beat yourself up pls. It’s an assignment for you to consider. Your response will not add a dime to my financial position. Keep ruminating on this for a while. It’s a good check on your verificationism and scientism stance.

Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

Workch:
You are the person stuck in deluded beliefs created from Stone Age. You should be ashamed of yourself for that

Lol!
I will keep peppering your ignorance with these questions. Go home and study and learn in silence:

More ashamed than you believe it like a zombie without evidence. Seems like ancient humans who made this up are even smarter than you

Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

Workch:
Never test your lord because we don’t want you to know that he doesn’t exist

You are gullible

Hahaha! This guy you are still here?
We already concluded you don’t exist since you failed to prove your consciousness to us empirically. Hahahaha!
Remember your logic about what cannot be tested doesn’t exist, including you and your logic.


Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

Nothingserious:
Hahaha! This guy you are still here?
We already concluded you don’t exist since you failed to prove your consciousness to us empirically. Hahahaha!
Remember your logic about what cannot be tested doesn’t exist, including you and your logic.


Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

God doesn’t exist.
Same way talking snakes don’t

It exist in the head of gullible Christians

They also believe in taking snakes

Nothingserious:
Good point.
1. Can we start with your consciousness?
If you can’t show me empirical proof for your consciousness, then you don’t exist. Agreed? Show us.

Number 2: show us empirical proofs for your logic and reasoning applied in this discourse. If you can’t , we can assume we all haven’t been applying logic in diverse ways here. Pls show us.

3. Show us an empirical proof of your mind not being separate from your body and our discussion happening in real time.We need to be sure you are typing in real time and not a million years ago.

4. Show me empirical proof for maths or we assume they don’t exist.

4. Show me an empirical proof that the device you are holding is finer and more beautiful aesthetically than mine.

If you don’t have any of these proofs, then you don’t exist, your mind don’t exist, aesthetics don’t exist, maths don’t exist , logic don’t exist.
I am following your logic and I like it.

When you are done running away from providing evidence for your god. I will still ask you evidence for taking snakes in Genesis
Funny people, that’s they get scammed easily

Workch:
God doesn’t exist.
Same way talking snakes don’t

It exist in the head of gullible Christians

They also believe in taking snakes

There is no proof that he doesn't exist. Atheists are close minded. The universe is complex. We haven't even cracked how the brain works, talkless of understanding if a supreme diety exist.