LordReed:


Wrong. Natural selection doesn't dictate that only helpful traits and or habits get passed on. Natural selection only puts pressure on organisms to survive and breed. Not eating vegetables and not exercising do not stop survival or breeding. Therefore what predisposition to health or unhealthy habits get passed on are not affected by natural selection if those habits do not stop survival or breeding.

You are contradicting yourself. "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. If you eat lots of sugar, fat, salt, and don't exercise, and I eat vegetables, oils, and water, over generations there'd be much more of my offsprings than yours because more and more yours won't live long enough to reproduce

PoliteActivist:


If you quote me again I'll go through all my recent posts on NL and tag you on all of them.
STOP QUOTING ME!

If you like
Tag the whole of NL
NONSENSE

PoliteActivist:


You are contradicting yourself. "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. If you eat lots of sugar, fat, salt, and don't exercise, and I eat vegetables, oils, and water, over generations there'd be much more of my offsprings than yours because more and more yours won't live long enough to reproduce

The organism only needs to survive long enough to reproduce. This is why diabetes will still exist, it doesn't stop reproduction. There is no contradiction.

If what you are trying to insinuate were true then the longest lived animals would be the most populous on the planet but fact is its the opposite we find.

PoliteActivist:


Wether habit or survival, where did the instinct come from? Why don't they eat grass like goats?

It's simple. Because they need a high level of protein to survive which can only be found in animal tissues.

Goats on the other hand cannot digest meat lest they die. Everyone is just trying to survive.

Mind you, you should understand that. Every beast of the field and life in the deep evolved at different times in different environments.

First of all. You need to understand what a cell is. Cells process informations and develop with respect to their environment.

I think you need a crash course on evolution.

PoliteActivist:


You are contradicting yourself. "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. If you eat lots of sugar, fat, salt, and don't exercise, and I eat vegetables, oils, and water, over generations there'd be much more of my offsprings than yours because more and more yours won't live long enough to reproduce

In the Grand Calculus of Evolution, reproduction is far more important than longevity. Though, longevity is also important.

And do not link longevity and survival together. Living organisms do not survive primarily for longevity, but basically for reproduction.

There are organisms that die immediately after reproduction. Has that stopped them from it? No.

FRANCISTOWN:

In the Grand Calculus of Evolution, reproduction is far more important than longevity. Though, longevity is also important.

And do not link longevity and survival together. Living organisms do not survive primarily for longevity, but basically for reproduction.

There are organisms that die immediately after reproduction. Has that stopped them from it? No.

I now see why they say Atheism teaches life is purposeless and hope is stupid

LordReed:


The organism only needs to survive long enough to reproduce. This is why diabetes will still exist, it doesn't stop reproduction. There is no contradiction.

If what you are trying to insinuate were true then the longest lived animals would be the most populous on the planet but fact is its the opposite we find.

They need to survive old enough and healthy enough to reproduce (that's what is meant by longevity) MORE THAN their healthy-eating counterparts. Over millions of years you definitely WON'T have what you have today - almost everyone loving what's bad for them!

Diabetes and other diseases exist because there are mutations and carriers who pass on the gene without experiencing the disease.

Of course you contradicted yourself - "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. That's what natural selection selects for

FRANCISTOWN:

It's simple. Because they need a high level of protein to survive which can only be found in animal tissues.

Goats on the other hand cannot digest meat lest they die. Everyone is just trying to survive.

Mind you, you should understand that. Every beast of the field and life in the deep evolved at different times in different environments.

First of all. You need to understand what a cell is. Cells process informations and develop with respect to their environment.

I think you need a crash course on evolution.

So who DESIGNED them to need high levels of protein to survive while goats cannot digest meat? Evolution can't answer that question without fudging ridiculously, neither can it answer why that is not the case with man. It's not as if these animals evolved on different planets!
Neither can evolution explain abiogenesis (non-living things turning into living tnings)

FRANCISTOWN:

In the Grand Calculus of Evolution, reproduction is far more important than longevity. Though, longevity is also important.

And do not link longevity and survival together. Living organisms do not survive primarily for longevity, but basically for reproduction.

There are organisms that die immediately after reproduction. Has that stopped them from it? No.

What is meant by "longevity" in this instant is: "living long enough and healthy enough to reproduce"

Aemmyjah:


If you like
Tag the whole of NL
NONSENSE

Seun this person is harassing me. He keeps quoting me when I've told him to cease and desist. I just might go nuclear

PoliteActivist:


Seun this person is harassing me. He keeps quoting me when I've told him to cease and desist. I just might go nuclear

😂

Aemmyjah:


😂

Keep shinning teeth until it happens. It will do you like film

PoliteActivist:


Keep shinning teeth until it happens. It will do you like film

Ok na

PoliteActivist:


*(nlfpmod, OAM4, Seun, after one or two posts the "antispam bot" bans me for 24hrs for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON!!! Please, I don't understand. What is going on??)

Moniker JessicaRabbit, na wa for you o. It is not everything you argue, otherwise it seems you're arguing just to be arguing. I detailed to you why it is more BENEFICIAL to NOT be an atheist in this our reality and system. Which I didn't need to do because you'd instinctively know it. It doesn't mean atheism is bad, it is just not the thing to be in this our system of things!
Let's take a practical example - YOU! Assuming you are a lady, a young lady. Let's say you finally realise you really don't know anything about this our reality - that God may very well exist. Based on that you decide you're no longer an atheist and start attending, say, Roman Catholic.
You are a smart young lady - you are not about to be brainwashed by anybody, and you're not about to become and extremist. See what happens:
1) You now have God, whom you can call on any time you wish and know he loves you and is with you in all situations.
2) You now have a whole social mileu opened up to you - networking opportunities, husband materials, etc.
3) Fairly or unfairly, you are now viewed more favorably by much of society and are trusted more by individuals you deal with.
4) You'd no longer be wasting your time fighting religion - a foolish fight because you can't make a dent.
5) You'd still have everything you had as an atheist, except the stigma!

Stop sounding like a fanatic. Read my posts to understand them, not just make up a response. I already showed you that your claim of atheism being somehow less "beneficial" than theism reeks of subjectivity. You're essentially proposing that the Christian worldview and its perceived benefits are universally applicable, which is about as scientific as claiming the Earth is flat. My sense of fulfillment and purpose doesn't hinge on the existence of a deity, and suggesting otherwise is both presumptuous and disrespectful to the diverse range of values and experiences that define individuals. You must understand this single fact, else I don't see the point of continuing this discussion if you'll just ignore what I'm saying and come back only to keep repeating yourself. Secondly, your practical example relies heavily on stereotypes and generalizations. You paint a picture of an uninformed atheist suddenly experiencing an epiphany and then flocking to an organized religion, solely for societal advantages. This narrative not only ignores the vast spectrum of reasons behind individuals' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) but also reduces complex choices to a mere "what's in it for me?" mentality. Your naive assumption that I, or any atheist, would automatically experience a surge in social life, romantic prospects, and societal trust solely by embracing a specific religion is nothing short of ludicrous. What about the countless examples of atheists who thrive in various social spheres and garner respect based on their merits, not their faith? Are the experiences of those atheists too inconvenient for your dodgy narrative?

Fighting religion is not a "foolish fight". You are only betraying your fundamental misunderstanding of the role of critical thinking in a healthy society, as well your ignorance of the historical and ongoing social progress fueled by secular movements. Questioning established norms and challenging authority, whether religious or otherwise, is (and always has been) a cornerstone of intellectual growth and social progress. It will do you a measure of good to actually address the core tenets of atheism, instead of relying on a series of fallacies and strawmen.

P.S. You need to chill out with your incessant quoting of monikers. You should have realized by now that majority of the people you're quoting do not wish to partake in this conversation, so your constant tagging, apart from constituting an unnecessary nuisance, is also a tad disrespectful. Seeing your mentions make me feel dizzy because I'm not sure which posts I should (or shouldn't) respond to.

P.P.S Stick to screenshots instead of copying and pasting lengthy articles from the web. It could help with your constant bans.

PoliteActivist:


😆 It is funny how you keep touting science, "scientific method", neuroscience. It is usually people who know nothing about science that are like that about science.
Scientists themselves know the vast limitations of science. See some comments from g.o.a.t. scientific minds below. Not only is the true nature of existence not known to science, the true nature of existence is NOT knowable through science!

Wow. I'm quite sure you don't realize the irony of quoting giants of science as though it negates their own reliance on the very method you seem eager to discredit. That's a brilliant own-goal in logic if I've ever seen one.

Socrates emphasized the value of self-awareness, but he also engaged in rigorous questioning, a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Einstein recognized the vastness of the unknown, but can you guess the method through which he dedicated his life to uncovering these unknown mysteries of the universe? I'll give you a hint. It starts with "scientific" and ends with "inquiry".

Same goes for Newton. While acknowledging the limitations of his individual understanding, he actively used the scientific method to unlock the secrets of the universe.

These minds, like countless others, embraced the power of evidence-based exploration. They didn't see the limitations of science as a reason to abandon it, but as a constant reminder to push the boundaries of knowledge further. It's like saying a map is useless because it doesn't reveal every hidden corner of the world. It's the tool that guides us, helps us navigate the unknown, and constantly refine our understanding.

So at the end of the day, I think I'll stick to the pursuit of knowledge through verifiable evidence, not celestial sugar daddies or the whimsical pronouncements of cherry-picked quotes.

PoliteActivist:


They need to survive old enough and healthy enough to reproduce (that's what is meant by longevity) MORE THAN their healthy-eating counterparts. Over millions of years you definitely WON'T have what you have today - almost everyone loving what's bad for them!

Diabetes and other diseases exist because there are mutations and carriers who pass on the gene without experiencing the disease.

Of course you contradicted yourself - "Helpful traits" are traits that support survival (longevity) and reproduction. That's what natural selection selects for

Explain why the longest lived animals are not the most populous.

PoliteActivist:




I always wonder where they get pretentious people like these from.
How many times have I mentioned you on this thread?
How else do I let people on the thread know I'm back from a ban??
Feel free to mention me too on any topic you think I might be interested in.

LoLz at pretentious. So advising you on how you may stop being banned is pretentious? Okay.

PoliteActivist:


What is meant by "longevity" in this instant is: "living long enough and healthy enough to reproduce"

Nope! A human being can reproduce at 14. Would that mean such human has enjoyed longevity?
I[b][/b]n fact, we'd day the person dies prematurely.

Longevity in the events of humans begins from 80 years upward.

Therefore reproduction stage and longevity are different.
I also talked about organisms that die immediately after reproduction.

FRANCISTOWN:


Ha! I FRANCISTOWN?
My existence dey significant die.

BTW lemme ask you this, what can you get by your faith that I can't get because I don't have faith.

PoliteActivist:


What is meant by "longevity" in this instant is: "living long enough and healthy enough to reproduce"

Your definition is nothing but equivocation. Nevertheless, explain how diabetes prevents someone from living long enough to reproduce.

LordReed:


BTW lemme ask you this, what can you get by your faith that I can't get because I don't have faith.

That one sef follow claim believer? We dey suffer gaan ooh.

Deleted

Image123:


That one sef follow claim believer? We dey suffer gaan ooh.

😂

JessicaRabbit:


Stop sounding like a fanatic. Read my posts to understand them, not just make up a response. I already showed you that your claim of atheism being somehow less "beneficial" than theism reeks of subjectivity. You're essentially proposing that the Christian worldview and its perceived benefits are universally applicable, which is about as scientific as claiming the Earth is flat. My sense of fulfillment and purpose doesn't hinge on the existence of a deity, and suggesting otherwise is both presumptuous and disrespectful to the diverse range of values and experiences that define individuals. You must understand this single fact, else I don't see the point of continuing this discussion if you'll just ignore what I'm saying and come back only to keep repeating yourself. Secondly, your practical example relies heavily on stereotypes and generalizations. You paint a picture of an uninformed atheist suddenly experiencing an epiphany and then flocking to an organized religion, solely for societal advantages. This narrative not only ignores the vast spectrum of reasons behind individuals' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) but also reduces complex choices to a mere "what's in it for me?" mentality. Your naive assumption that I, or any atheist, would automatically experience a surge in social life, romantic prospects, and societal trust solely by embracing a specific religion is nothing short of ludicrous. What about the countless examples of atheists who thrive in various social spheres and garner respect based on their merits, not their faith? Are the experiences of those atheists too inconvenient for your dodgy narrative?

Fighting religion is not a "foolish fight". You are only betraying your fundamental misunderstanding of the role of critical thinking in a healthy society, as well your ignorance of the historical and ongoing social progress fueled by secular movements. Questioning established norms and challenging authority, whether religious or otherwise, is (and always has been) a cornerstone of intellectual growth and social progress. It will do you a measure of good to actually address the core tenets of atheism, instead of relying on a series of fallacies and strawmen.

P.S. You need to chill out with your incessant quoting of monikers. You should have realized by now that majority of the people you're quoting do not wish to partake in this conversation, so your constant tagging, apart from constituting an unnecessary nuisance, is also a tad disrespectful. Seeing your mentions make me feel dizzy because I'm not sure which posts I should (or shouldn't) respond to.

P.P.S Stick to screenshots instead of copying and pasting lengthy articles from the web. It could help with your constant bans.

(JessicaRabbi, this is a quick response. I'll reply you more fully when I have time)

For the record, I have not ONCE copied and pasted ANYTHING from the web on this thread.
I have never been banned for anything you mentioned. The bans are probably due to technical glitches of some sort that don't follow any logical pattern. I post long epistles and don't get banned, then get banned for an innocuous one-paragraph post!

You keep talking about fallacies when you are the one full of logical fallacies. Did anyone ever say there are no benefits to being an atheist? Or that there are no atheists that lead fulfilling lives? The discussion is: all things being equal, which is MORE beneficial in our reality and society!!

And you keep talking subjectivity.
Life itself is subjective!
Infact, you can say we all live in different worlds though we are physically in same world. I think that is the greatest hidden flaw of the human mind that we are unaware of - assuming everybody experiences reality same way we do.

Folks, please note, I will soon have the result and conclusion of the debate - who won and why.
So far religionists have an edge. There are too many questions atheists can't answer. The only ones religionists can't answer is, WHY their particular religion is the right one, and WHY did creation suddenly start whenever it started.

FxMasterz, maynman, Dtruthspeaker, Image123, DrJones109, Jesusjnr2022, LordReed, Jaephoenix, JessicaRabbit, Knownunknown, DeepSight, BBIA HellVictorinho6, SIXFEETUNDER, OkpaNsukkaisBae, Bacteriologist, FRANCISTOWN, SIRTee15, Aemmyjah, TheSourcerer,
Busybrain2233, 1Sharon, TakeNigeriaBack,
Botragelad, isan, MaxInDHouse, Fourthpredator,
seun, hopefullandlord, bobestman, Lorrayne, HardMirror, Hahn, SlawG, albreezy4eva, Muslim, Dominique, Mrbroke, EnemyofGod2,  kkins25, Wilgrea7, A001, Maynthemayn

LordReed:


Your definition is nothing but equivocation. Nevertheless, explain how diabetes prevents someone from living long enough to reproduce.

You obviously haven't done your research (as usual )

In men it can cause problems getting and maintaining an erection, and also lower levels of testosterone.
In women it can result in irregular or absent menstrual cycles, and also increase the risk of miscarriage and still birth.

FRANCISTOWN:


Nope! A human being can reproduce at 14. Would that mean such human has enjoyed longevity?
I[b][/b]n fact, we'd day the person dies prematurely.

Longevity in the events of humans begins from 80 years upward.

Therefore reproduction stage and longevity are different.
I also talked about organisms that die immediately after reproduction.

LordReed:

Explain why the longest lived animals are not the most populous.

Ridiculous. Someone CLEARLY told you what he meant and you are still arguing! It is like someone says "let X be 2, 3+X=5" and your reply is "X is not 2"!!😆

Besides that, it is not just by reaching a certain age. Merely surving will not guarantee reproduction. You have to be "rich" enough to get a fertile mate (competition), and vibrantly healthy enough and fertile enough yourself to reproduce.

But not only that, due to competition, over generations the sickly will disappear though they live more than long enough to reproduce

PoliteActivist:


You obviously haven't done your research (as usual )

In men it can cause problems getting and maintaining an election, and also lower levels of testosterone.
In women it can result in irregular or absent menstrual cycles, and also increase the risk of miscarriage and still birth.

LoLz. Now youswitched from longevity to reproductive problems. What you fail to consider is as long as a significant portion of diabetic patients still SUCCESSFULLY reproduce then the susceptibility continues to propagate. Besides the incidence of diabetes is INCREASING not decreasing.

LordReed:


LoLz. Now youswitched from longevity to reproductive problems. What you fail to consider is as long as a significant portion of diabetic patients still SUCCESSFULLY reproduce then the susceptibility continues to propagate. Besides the incidence of diabetes is INCREASING not decreasing.

Which is exactly the point - natural selection theory often doesn't pan out in real life.
But in this case you're actually wrong - even if diabetics don't reproduce, people pass on the gene without being diabetic themselves

PoliteActivist:


Which is exactly the point - natural selection theory often doesn't pan out in real life.
But in this case you're actually wrong - even if diabetics don't reproduce, people pass on the gene without being diabetic themselves

It does you just don't understand what it entails. It is not selecting for anything. Environmental and other pressures determine which organisms survive and how they change. You think it's some magic force determining that the organisms with the best traits become the only Survivors which is flat out wrong.

PoliteActivist:


Well said and well written, good example too.
Sooo you accept that:
1) Humans were DESIGNED to hate whats good for their health and longevity. If not, where did that come from?
2) Where did lions liking raw meat, and goats liking grass come from?
3) LordReed and JessicaRabbit, do you agree with him that those are habits, not heritable traits?

LordReed I answered your question. You still haven't answered mine

LordReed:


It does you just don't understand what it entails. It is not selecting for anything. Environmental and other pressures determine which organisms survive and how they change. You think it's some magic force determining that the organisms with the best traits become the only Survivors which is flat out wrong.

Confusing post. What do you mean?