LordReed:


Dumdum just says it as if it is true. LoLz. Na wa. They really need to teach critical thinking in school so that people stop falling mugu to nonsense. LoLz.

If you were at all capable of critical thinking you'd have realized long ago (like most of our geniuses) that you don’t know anything

PoliteActivist:


If you were at all capable of critical thinking you'd have realized long ago (like most of our geniuses) that you don’t know anything

Does he know how to read?

Surely, that's something?

LordReed:


I don't get embarrassed like you do cos I'm not a phony like you. I ought to have been writing nature not natural selection, that's why I was surprised you said I wrote natural selection. The statement should therefore be NATURE does not select anything.
.

Soo,
Q E D. (as usual!)

(Truly amazing how you always lose EVERY TIME we argue!)

LordReed:


They didn't become carnivores or omnivores dumdum, they've always been carnivores or omnivores.

Thus is NOT true. Man was a vegetarian for a long time. Why didn't goats follow suit?

LordReed:


I said the reason diabetes survives is because the trait for susceptibility continues to be propagated and that diabetic people do not die before they can reproduce. Don't twist my words dumdum.

I don't want to call u a liar but you said it for several pages - that the ONLY reason diabetes survives is because diabetics reproduce!

budaatum:


Does he know how to read?

Surely, that's something?

He has to first exist to be reading, and we are not sure he exists. Just because there seems to be something like reading going on doesn't mean he exists

PoliteActivist:


He has to first exist to be reading, and we are not sure he exists. Just because there seems to be something like reading going on doesn't mean he exists

I know my Lord exists. You'll be sure too once you bother to understand what existence means and how to ascertain whether beings and things exist or not.

HellVictorinho6:


No universe exists

Whether

Tangible or not


But we arent minds


We just call what we express by intention or what we intend to express MIND

You could be right. We have no way of knowing what this truly is. We could easily be made to think there is absolutely a universe when there is no universe at all

budaatum:


I know my Lord exists. You'll be sure too once you bother to understand what existence means and how to ascertain whether beings and things exist or not.

Funny guy. Who's your Lord as an atheist?

budaatum:


My brain is never disconnected, and I am asking you to perform the experiment with your brain, that you claim doesn't actually exist, intact please.

You can try the disconnected brain version afterwards.

Point is, same way you could be made to NOT feel "pain" that is there, you can also be made to feel pain that is not there. There is no such thing as pain independent of your brain - whatever your brain registers as pain is pain.
Hence if you did this in a dream you'd also feel pain. Pain has nothing to do.with your habd but your brain

LordReed:


Dumdum does it not occur to you that if this was a simulation that the programmers could simulate any speed they want? Why would the simulation be limited by the processor for crying out loud. Modern processors can simulate faster than light speeds for Andromeda's sake.

Also Dumdum what makes you think the so called simulation programmers are not capable of producing increasingly more powerful processors? Failure to think I swear.

See below. This is from physics department of a university, NOT the usual nonsense you write from top of your head and later try to save face about

budaatum:


Neither is a product of mindless chance or chaos. One is an intelligent copy of what already exists in nature, which study shows gradually evolved over time into what it currently is. So there's no reason to assume there is an intelligent designer to compensate for one's lack of knowledge when one can very easily go learn.

That's folly

PoliteActivist:


Point is, same way you could be made to NOT feel "pain" that is there, you can also be made to feel pain that is not there. There is no such thing as pain independent of your brain - whatever your brain registers as pain is pain.
Hence if you did this in a dream you'd also feel pain. Pain has nothing to do.with your habd but your brain

So, you that doesn't "actually exist" will not feel pain but your brain that does exist will feel pain?

Can you explain how your brain exists without you please, such that it will feel the pain that you don't feel?

And note that I do wonder at your fudge thinking that seems to suggest that you that doesn't actually exist can dream and feel pain.

Aemmyjah:


That's folly

Are you saying, to assume there is an intelligent designer to compensate for one's lack of knowledge when one can very easily go learn is folly, Aemmyjah, or that to go learn itself is folly?

budaatum:


Are you saying, to assume there is an intelligent designer to compensate for one's lack of knowledge when one can very easily go learn is folly, Aemmyjah, or that to go learn itself is folly?

There's a building in our village made of bricks and bamboo in a thick forest and very unusual design
From the oldest person till now, no one knows how the building came to be

It is folly to believe that someone must have built it even when we lack knowledge of such shey?

Aemmyjah:

There's a building in our village made of bricks and bamboo in a thick forest and very unusual design
From the oldest person till now, no one knows how the building came to be

It is folly to believe that someone must have built it even when we lack knowledge of such shey?

After many centuries and before Christ, many Egyptians had forgotten how to read the hieroglyphs, and when asked who built the pyramids, they said the gods had built them. And that despite the existence of detailed wage records.

Aemmyjah, it is as much folly to claim "to believe that someone must have built it even when we lack knowledge of such" as it is to believe 2+2 =10 because you don't know it equals 4.

Apart from the fact that once you've decided to believe, you would not continue seeking knowledge about how the house was built and who built it and why and how it was built, and I could easily exploit your lack of knowledge by giving you ₦2 and then another ₦2 and I wouldn't need to work hard for you to believe I've given you ₦10, which definitely would not be folly for me.

budaatum:


After many centuries and before Christ, many Egyptians had forgotten how to read the hieroglyphs, and when asked who built the pyramids, they said the gods had built them. And that despite the existence of detailed wage records.

Aemmyjah, it is as much folly to claim "to believe that someone must have built it even when we lack knowledge of such" as it is to believe 2+2 =10 because you don't know it equals 4.

Apart from the fact that once you've decided to believe, you would not continue seeking knowledge about how the house was built and who built it and why and how it was built, and I could easily exploit your lack of knowledge by giving you ₦2 and then another ₦2 and I wouldn't need to work hard for you to believe I've given you ₦10, which definitely would not be folly for me.

gods or not? Someone built them
Your folly is very high
It's like a computer trying to explain to another computer how it or other components of it was made without alluding to a designer or programmer

budaatum:


After many centuries and before Christ, many Egyptians had forgotten how to read the hieroglyphs, and when asked who built the pyramids, they said the gods had built them. And that despite the existence of detailed wage records.

Aemmyjah, it is as much folly to claim "to believe that someone must have built it even when we lack knowledge of such" as it is to believe 2+2 =10 because you don't know it equals 4.

Apart from the fact that once you've decided to believe, you would not continue seeking knowledge about how the house was built and who built it and why and how it was built, and I could easily exploit your lack of knowledge by giving you ₦2 and then another ₦2 and I wouldn't need to work hard for you to believe I've given you ₦10, which definitely would not be folly for me.

You're like someone trying to explain computer inside a computer
How do I compare you and LordReed and other atheists who claim to be wise but are really opposite?

It's like an intelligent person trying to explain how computer came to bewithout using or acknowledging man
as an answer
Give a purely naturalistic origin of computers and all the answers must lie within the computer - how all the molecules plastics, data, language came together without referencing an outside Source.
An Artificial Intelligence might say it did not emerge or a product of any superior intelligence but common sense leads us to believe that it is not based on the evidence and we would never agree. It is like a transgender trying to make you believe that not only women can get pregnant. The folly and ignorance is on you.
Will you simply accept that the artificial intelligence had no source? This artificial intelligence may even convince his peers that they are the gods, they somehow came into existence from the evolution of computer and majority agree. That is exactly what you atheists and the one fooling himself by saying he's an igtheist.
How much more man's intelligence which the intellectual gap is very higher than any other organism on earth. Yet, they want to believe that intelligence of man came by some disruptions in the brain cells

Aemmyjah:

gods or not? Someone built them

Someone, Aemmyjah. So why say god when you don't know?

Aemmyjah:

Your folly is very high

You don't know how high my supposed folly is, and just assume god, so be told here.

Aemmyjah:
It's like a computer trying to explain to another computer how it or other components of it was made without alluding to a designer or programmer

I can just about see you trying to explain what you believe about computers to a computer without actually bothering to learn anything about computers and the phrase, garbage in garbage out springs to mind.

I am not a computer, Aemmyjah. And unlike a computer, I can challenge your beliefs by asking you questions and by telling you what I think, and I think Goddidit is antiquated and stupid, and so is very like Adam daily walking naked past the tree of the fruit of knowledge without nourishing himself with it because he believes knowledge would kill him.

Aemmyjah:

Give a purely naturalistic origin of computers and all the answers must lie within the computer - how all the molecules plastics, data, language came together without referencing an outside Source.

Why would anyone want to disregard "all the molecules plastics, data, language came together without referencing an outside Source"?

If you paid to learn about computers and they teach you "a purely naturalistic origin of computers and all the answers must lie within the computer", would you say you got your money's worth or you got scammed?

Aemmyjah:

Yet, they want to believe that intelligence of man came by some disruptions in the brain cells

I think you are doing godidit with your "believe that intelligence of man came by some disruptions in the brain cells" because you lack knowledge, but I'll give you some so you know.

Intelligence of humans came about through the use of the senses to acquire knowledge which gradually grew over the entire human history until it became the intelligence we observe today. There was a time when we could not cure headaches and didn't know what cancer was or what caused malaria and beat drums to communicate with the neighbouring villages, but now we are close to curing cancer and eradicating mosquitoes despite us Nigerians not yet understanding we farm the darn things in our gutters, and we all have phones, so I don't get where you get your "believe that intelligence of man came by some disruptions in the brain cells" from except from some god of yours.

budaatum:


So, you that doesn't "actually exist" will not feel pain but your brain that does exist will feel pain?

Can you explain how your brain exists without you please, such that it will feel the pain that you don't feel?

And note that I do wonder at your fudge thinking that seems to suggest that you that doesn't actually exist can dream and feel pain.

Oh we assumed a lot for the sake of conversation. We not only assumed I exist, we assumed the physical universe exists and we assumed I actually have a hand and that there is a hammer. Lots of HUGE assumptions, just like Descartes who made the huge leap from existence of thinking to he himself existing - "Cogito..."
In reality even your fellow atheist, Sam Harris, says the individual does not exist (see below). Since u r of same religion, do you agree with him?

budaatum:


My brain is never disconnected, and I am asking you to perform the experiment with your brain, that you claim doesn't actually exist, intact please.

You can try the disconnected brain version afterwards.

There is no ALL THAT EXISTS or universe but there is an ALL in anything that exists


space/time cant prove the existence of everything because there cant be an inside when there is no outside but there must be something since nothing cant stand or exist as a point or side to be defined.

PoliteActivist:


You could be right. We have no way of knowing what this truly is. We could easily be made to think there is absolutely a universe when there is no universe at all

There are whatevers/whoevers indefinitely

PoliteActivist:


(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.

The whole "all things being equal" argument is fantastical at best. People don't choose their beliefs in a vacuum. Upbringing, cultural influences, personal experiences etc. all play a role. But even in a hypothetical world, "benefits" are subjective! Your version of a "beneficial" life might involve church socials and shared beliefs, while mine might involve the freedom to explore ideas without theological constraints. There's no one-size-fits-all answer. At the very least, I'm pleased that you've finally come out to declare the subjectivity of life. That has been my point all along! That's why claiming everyone experiences the divine the same way, or that a specific religion is universally "beneficial", is a bit of a stretch. My reality involves finding meaning through personal growth, scientific discovery, and human connection - all perfectly fulfilling pursuits that don't require a deity.

You know what? Why don't you go ahead and tell me, what aspects of religion you find most beneficial? Maybe I can share my perspective on how I find similar fulfillment without resorting to faith. Mutual understanding is far more productive than this game of logical whack-a-mole we seem to be playing.

PoliteActivist:


See below. This is from physics department of a university, NOT the usual nonsense you write from top of your head and later try to save face about

Nope it's from their BLOG. And is a reprint from an article in a a NON SCIENTIFIC publication. You should ask yourself why there is no peer reviewed paper after all these years.

HellVictorinho6:


There are whatevers/whoevers indefinitely

What I can say for sure is that something exists since there seems to be something like what we call "thinking" going on. Now the nature of that something that exists I'm not sure about

LordReed:


Nope it's from their BLOG. And is a reprint from an article in a a NON SCIENTIFIC publication. You should ask yourself why there is no peer reviewed paper after all these years.

You have started your ridiculousness again. Why are you fixated on the word "blog"? What has that to do with anything?? Below is the end of the article and who wrote it!

JessicaRabbit:


The whole "all things being equal" argument is fantastical at best. People don't choose their beliefs in a vacuum. Upbringing, cultural influences, personal experiences etc. all play a role. But even in a hypothetical world, "benefits" are subjective! Your version of a "beneficial" life might involve church socials and shared beliefs, while mine might involve the freedom to explore ideas without theological constraints. There's no one-size-fits-all answer. At the very least, I'm pleased that you've finally come out to declare the subjectivity of life. That has been my point all along! That's why claiming everyone experiences the divine the same way, or that a specific religion is universally "beneficial", is a bit of a stretch. My reality involves finding meaning through personal growth, scientific discovery, and human connection - all perfectly fulfilling pursuits that don't require a deity.

You know what? Why don't you go ahead and tell me, what aspects of religion you find most beneficial? Maybe I can share my perspective on how I find similar fulfillment without resorting to faith. Mutual understanding is far more productive than this game of logical whack-a-mole we seem to be playing.

What do you mean by finding meaning through personal growth and human connection?

It is a very vague term which both evil and good people use interchangeably

Kindly clarify

PoliteActivist:


What I can say for sure is that something exists since there seems to be something like what we call "thinking" going on. Now the nature of that something that exists I'm not sure about

Depends on what u mean by nature of xyz

JessicaRabbit:


The whole "all things being equal" argument is fantastical at best. People don't choose their beliefs in a vacuum. Upbringing, cultural influences, personal experiences etc. all play a role. But even in a hypothetical world, "benefits" are subjective! Your version of a "beneficial" life might involve church socials and shared beliefs, while mine might involve the freedom to explore ideas without theological constraints. There's no one-size-fits-all answer. At the very least, I'm pleased that you've finally come out to declare the subjectivity of life. That has been my point all along! That's why claiming everyone experiences the divine the same way, or that a specific religion is universally "beneficial", is a bit of a stretch. My reality involves finding meaning through personal growth, scientific discovery, and human connection - all perfectly fulfilling pursuits that don't require a deity.

You know what? Why don't you go ahead and tell me, what aspects of religion you find most beneficial? Maybe I can share my perspective on how I find similar fulfillment without resorting to faith. Mutual understanding is far more productive than this game of logical whack-a-mole we seem to be playing.

Good to have you back. Your erudite submissions add to the level of the discussion.
Well, without "all things being equal" we can't have a discussion because, as I pointed out, it's like we all live in different realities though we physically occupy the same world. There are people who speak with God everyday and people who see shape-shifting demons everyday. Then there are people who are 100% sure a supernatural doesn't exist. The totally weird thing is that BOTH may be right!

Respectfully, you're trying to play a fast one. I am the one who has always said that life is totally subjective - that what exists for one person may not exist for another.
As for what aspects of religion are beneficial, they are rather obvious. Just believing God is on your side and you can't fail is better than going it "alone". But the real point is that you can at same time have ALL there is in atheism without the stigma and "lonliness" and isolation from the social mainstream (speaking of the "human connection" you talked about).
You're right, mutual understanding is far more productive. Though "logical whack-a-mole" can be a lot of fun too. I'll admit I enjoy beating up LordReed . I'm truly amazed I've won EVERY SINGLE discussion I've had with him. They always end with me saying "QED"!

HellVictorinho6:


Depends on what u mean by nature of xyz

Go with whatever you think it means, let's see where you going

PoliteActivist:


Good to have you back. Your erudite submissions add to the level of the discussion.
Well, without "all things being equal" we can't have a discussion because, as I pointed out, it's like we all live in different realities though we physically occupy the same world. There are people who speak with God everyday and people who see shape-shifting demons everyday. Then there are people who are 100% sure a supernatural doesn't exist. The totally weird thing is that BOTH may be right!

Respectfully, you're trying to play a fast one. I am the one who has always said that life is totally subjective - that what exists for one person may not exist for another.
As for what aspects of religion are beneficial, they are rather obvious. Just believing God is on your side and you can't fail is better than going it "alone". But the real point is that you can at same time have ALL there is in atheism without the stigma and "lonliness" and isolation from the social mainstream (speaking of the "human connection" you talked about).
You're right, mutual understanding is far more productive. Though "logical whack-a-mole" can be a lot of fun too. I'll admit I enjoy beating up LordReed . I'm truly amazed I've won EVERY SINGLE discussion I've had with him. They always end with me saying "QED"!

LoLz! Keep dreaming of beating me, it is good to have aspirations.