sonmvayina:


The presentation is well over you..why not sit down and learn... because it is not consistent with the bull shiiit your pastor feeds you with..

Mumu. See how you just swallowed the bait whole

And there he goes assuming I'm a Christian. SMH

HammedOlanaija:

Ask your question and wait for mine

What objective evidence can you deliver and/or demonstrate for any deity(ies)?

aadoiza:
If I hear say I no evolve into Superman, make evolution do lineal atavism for atheists

Wetin concern atheism with evolution now?

HammedOlanaija:

I said it already no matter how one tells you stuffs behind it....you will still not agree and come up with insensible questions like your colleagues do.
Even you as a person will have burnt down several holy books including the bible and Quran

I take it that you are a Christian, right? Let me show you the difference between me and you.

If you are presented with evidence which contradicts your current position, would you consider changing your mind? Most atheists would answer "yes". Most Christians would answer with a resounding "no". Also, you are ignoring the fact that many atheists not only used to be religious, but used to be devout. So their minds were open to religion. They just realized it was bunk.

Religious belief is, ultimately and always, only based on (blind) faith. Faith is believing in something for which there is no credible evidence. What’s more close-minded than that? By definition, you must close your mind to do it.

Rozz:
Theres nothing genuine about the way Atheist think,they are just being deceived by some myths and they are misguided in their critiques of religion.

Lol. Sorry dear, there are no "myths" affixed to atheism. Atheism isn't based on myths, and if you insist it is, can you provide a comprehensive list of these myths?

Unlike the religious, atheists deal with hard facts and evidence. Facts and evidence, that it seems, are severely lacking in theistic religions. Our inquiry is, in fact, very genuine and justified. Ever heard of Onus Probandi?

Atheist" is what religious people call those who no longer color. You can substitute heathen, heretic, non-believer, sinner, apostate, the damned, or any other term you like. They all mean the same thing. "People who do not believe in God or gods." People who either put down the coloring book and walked away or those who never bothered to develop an interest in coloring. No one needs a "replacement" for coloring books and no one needs a replacement for religion.

Atheism is not a substitute belief system. It is not a world view. It is not a philosophy. It is not something you do. It is something you do not do. You just don't find it useful to believe in god or gods. That's it. Nothing more. And certainly nothing to settle for.

That's all there is to it dear. You can point at the sky, and scream magic dunnit, all you want, we'll just point at you, and laugh.

Rozz:
You guys believe we have no need for religion anymore because we have science,but this is an incredibly wrong notion since religion addresses different needs than science,needs that science can't address.

I will indulge you here. Please what are these special "needs" religion has to offer?

HammedOlanaija:

Do you believe in the existence of God?

No

HammedOlanaija:

There is nothing like genuine here in this your illusive inquiry that brings out nothing but an argument
Because no matter how pointless or not counterfeited one's point here is....you will still drag shit on floor and be adamant so what's the point?

Maybe it's because instead of providing evidence for a deity, most theists would rather dance around, pulling stunts, making meaningless word salads, and then end up castigating the atheist for not being "open-minded" - oblivious to their own errors and incompetence, of course.

HammedOlanaija:

It's right now

Right how? I've modified my initial post btw

Rozz:
Atheist are shallow thinkers

Explain how genuine inquiry concerning certain matters = shallow thinking. I'll wait

Some psychos in this thread'll be yapping absolute tosh, and they believe in their hearts that they've communicated. It's a horrid sight indeed...

To be frank, in the almost incomprehensible case that evolution were scientifically reversed tomorrow, I'd still be an atheist as I see no evidence commensurate to the claims of creationism and/or the existence of a deity. Just putting it out there.

Here's something to ponder...

Their god has a PERFECT PLAN that it cannot and will not change for ANY reason, because - well.... - it's a PERFECT plan, right? Therefore, it obviously stands to reason this virus we are dealing with is part of that Perfect Plan made by their ALL-POWERFUL/ALL-KNOWING god. YET.....

All these millions (billions?) of supposed "faithful" believers must not have too much optimism in regards to god's Perfect Plan, because they all keep praying to their god to make it all go away. Hmmmm.... Wonder if any of them know the definition of hypocrite?...

At least we can all be happy knowing the corporations and banks will come through unscathed with bonuses intact thanks to our funds.

budaatum:

Those who know buda will laugh at the above.

I'll just state that I will not bother with the selectivity with which you've chosen your evidence because the mere fact that you have shown an awareness of your selections is sufficient for me to know you can provide counters for each one yourself.

I do appreciate the effort all the same, Tamara.

You implied that Christ brought reason to mankind. I have offered a counter, displaying a few examples why christianity is one of ignorance and maintaining an ignorant peasant class.

If you choose not to counter, that is your choice. To concede.

OK. Let's see what the issue is here ...

budaatum:

Funny, but you'd likely not consider the above a description of what was done to Christ. He too "exposed a scam" that "was anti intellectual, anti science and anti reason, it kept people ignorant, dogmatic, closed minded, bigoted and hateful", and the "perpetrators just wanted him to go away quietly", but when he didn't, "ironically, the nastiest responses came from the current victims of the scam" who called for his crucification on a cross!

You would not see Christ as the education (the Word) that frees the "ignorant with a willingness to believe anything and learn from those who come before us", because, you are focusing on the "magic woo woo", and have "grown to believe in the same bullshit" instead of endeavouring to understand and comprehend it.

Quite correct at bolded. I do not see Christians as educators (far less as educated). What we see is your actions. Isn't there a quote about "judging by their actions" ...... ?

Well ..... lets see shall we.....

AD 354 ..... First burning of libraries in various cities of the empire.

AD 364 ..... Emperor Jovian orders the burning of the Library of Antioch.

AD 370 ..... Antioch, the philosopher Simonides is burned alive and the philosopher Maximus is decapitated. Tons of books are burnt in the squares of the cities of the Eastern Empire.

AD 372 ..... Valens orders the governor of Minor Asia to exterminate all the Hellenes and all documents of their wisdom.

AD 375 ..... The temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus, Greece, (possibly the greatest shool of medicine in the ancient world , is closed down by the Christians.

AD 381 ..... Throughout the Eastern Empire pagan temples and libraries are looted or burned down.

AD 388 ..... Public talks on religious subjects are outlawed by Theodosius.

AD 391 ..... In Alexandria, Egypt, pagans, led by the philosopher Olympius, revolt and after some street fights they lock themselves inside the fortified temple of the god Serapis (the Serapeion). After a violent siege, the Christians take over the building, demolish it, burn its famous library and profane the cult images.

AD 415 ..... Hypatia, Alexandrian Neoplatonist philosopher ,scholar ,astronomer and mathematician. Brutally murdered by a mob of monks agitated by Bishop Cyril and led by Cyril's right-hand man, Peter the Reader. Dragged from her chariot and into a church, she was stabbed repeatedly and skinned with oyster shells. Her naked body was burned to disguise the crime. Hypatia was not made a saint, nor honoured as a martyr.

'Saint' Cyril, however, made the grade. A 'Pillar of the Faith' he was declared a doctor of the Universal Church in 1882. Cyril remains a luminary of the Coptic Christian Church to this day.

Nice one, Cyril...

I shall stop here as I could go on all night, but I'm sure you get the point....

I'll finish with a quote from that great educator Augustine of Hippo:

"Since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think." – St Augustine

And that ,I think ,says it all....

budaatum:

Thankfully, "this is changing". "The Internet has ensured the Logos, Word, Education, Christ etc, has definitely acted to make places a lot less insular and, perhaps, more open-minded".

I'd be surprised if you see it that way though, because, like most, religion might have blinded your understanding. But do correct me if im wrong about you.

You are wrong.

But you have done a nice job in defining many theists as "ignorant with a willingness to believe anything". Personally, I prefer to check out the goods before I sign any cheques.

Corporate sponsorship for the Jesus logo is praised by Christian consumers who hide their chocolate bunny eggs under their L.E.D. trees during the festive Pagan holidays they hijacked from days of yore to better promote and profit from the childhood indoctrinations in the never-ending quest to dutifully support their all-knowing, all-powerful, financially-irresponsible, lovingly-sadistic, compassionately-narcissistic, confidently-insecure, warmongering-pacifistic creator of the universe. Furthermore, purple pillow puppies bravely bark before biting bright blue birdies singing sweet soothing songs waking weary wayward wanderers from fallows fenced for fame.

Just a little history lesson budaatum. After christ got nailed and promoted to heaven, it took a few hundred years for all the supposed "christian" sects to get their shit together and organized. Rome declined, and after it's fall, christianity took over. Under the control of christianity, intellectual darkness ruled, until the Renaissance. I suggest you examine christianity for what it is, a hindrance to human advancement and the sciences.

budaatum:

I made my point, Tamara, and if you patiently read it you'd get it, and the bits you didn't get you'd ask specific questions about so you can understand it instead of asking me to write it in English when I clearly did not write it in Arabic or Mandarin!

I got to say, "anti intellectual, anti science and anti reason", are not uniquely religious, but just sheer laziness.

Lol

I apologize if I come off as "sheer lazy" this minute because I'm sincerely occupied and typing on my smart phone is stress.

When I get home to my PC, we'll find out what your problem really is.

budaatum:

As I already said, in a response in which I used quite a lot of your very own words which you wrote in English and which you supposedly do understand:



I guess I was not wrong at all.

Except your post has no structure. Just a mish mash of woo woo. Word salads at their tastiest

Still waiting for you to make your point...

budaatum:

Sorry. I don't speak English.

Well, until you can learn to communicate your ideas in clear and simple English, I can't be arsed to respond to your noise. Happy Sunday

budaatum:


Funny, but you'd likely not consider the above a description of what was done to Christ. He too "exposed a scam" that "was anti intellectual, anti science and anti reason, it kept people ignorant, dogmatic, closed minded, bigoted and hateful", and the "perpetrators just wanted him to go away quietly", but when he didn't, "ironically, the nastiest responses came from the current victims of the scam" who called for his crucification on a cross!

You would not see Christ as the education (the Word) that frees the "ignorant with a willingness to believe anything and learn from those who come before us", because, you are focusing on the "magic woo woo", and have "grown to believe in the same bullshit" instead of endeavouring to understand and comprehend it.

Thankfully, "this is changing". "The Internet has ensured the Logos, Word, Education, Christ etc, has definitely acted to make places a lot less insular and, perhaps, more open-minded".

I'd be surprised if you see it that way though, because, like most, religion might have blinded your understanding. But do correct me if im wrong about you.

Your point. In English please

Isn't moaning during sexual intercourse a natural response? Can you easily choose NOT to moan? Isn't it an expression of pleasure just like screaming or crying is an expression of pain or displeasure?

I mean, .....

hupernikao:

Rabbi,
You have by the virtue of your wisdom, provided answers to all these via our discussion from the beginning. You are my source now in answering those questions. Go over all we said earlier you answers are there.

Blathering Bullshit! (First time I ever used the word "Blathering" and I have never seen such an appropriate opportunity. )

You have addressed nothing, your vapid rhetoric hand waving is meaningless. As is your dishonest denial objective scientific facts.

All you've done is to ignore and evade my questions. You refuse to have knowledge of your use of known logical fallacies, you won't respond to the question "what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?" with either a yes, no, or some evidence.

You have also not addressed your dishonest misrepresentation of atheism as a belief.

In short you have crossed the line from wilful ignorance, to deliberate mendacity.

Endless repetition won't make your claims any less facile, irrational or unevidenced. Your dishonest evasion will still be manifest for all to see, as are your lies making up straw man claims about science and assigning them to me.

hupernikao:
Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement. (source Tamaratonye1).
You also stated:
you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

Hence you agreed that there are things that exist beyond scientific tools and observations or testable by science. And objective evidence is not an umbrella for proving all issues. We have discussed this over and over here.

Yet you keep lying. I dont agree with your first conclusion and never did, and have said so multiple times, so you're a liar. NB this is not a contrary claim.

Stop lying please...

And yes there are things that are strictly subjective, and since your god idea remains completly unevidenced, your god idea remains strictly in the subjective realm, and since it is subjective I can dismiss your god idea simply because its completely subjective and unevidenced. Just like you can dismiss Santa Claus story not being real, even if you do not have any objective "evidence" that santa is NOT real.

While we're at it, what objective evidence can you demonstrate that anything exists beyond the natural physical world and universe?

Another question you have shamelessly avoided answering with even a pretence of candor.

hupernikao:

Well when you explain the bold, i may understand your question and respond.

We already know you only deny scientific facts that contradict your superstitious religious beliefs, like species evolution, and the bias of that is self evident, your embarrassing evasion is truly risible though, do you seriously expect me or anyone else to believe you don't know what religious beliefs are, or that you can't google the definition of superstitious? I'm actually embarrassed for you.

hupernikao:

You are not communicating here, just reliving your emotions via words. Not new though.

That's another risible lie from you, since the fallacies you used have been thoroughly explained to you, so your attempt at face saving here is truly cringeworthy. You have relentlessly tried to reverse the burden of proof for your claim a deity exists, by demanding atheists disprove it, yet are happy to disbelieve things you cannot disprove, which is the very definition of hypocrisy, and dishonest as well of course. I'd have more respect if you had the candour to admit it went over your head.

Let this sink in: Atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, it is therefore ipso facto not a belief. As you claimed previously that "Atheism believes", If you start any assertion atheism or atheists believe, then it is demonstrably false. You can only assert what an atheist believes when they tell you, until then all you can correctly infer is that they do not believe in any deity or deities. This is not debatable, it is an objective fact, that a cursory online search can validate with the dictionary definition of atheism.

NB If you repeat the claim after your error has been explained it ceases to be an error, and becomes a lie, so don't start whining at being labelled mendacious if you do this, as I just happen to have zero tolerance for deliberate mendacity or willful ignorance.

I'm going to give you another chance to address this:

Tamaratonye1:

Swell.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to me, so piss, or get off the pot!

"You can only dodge for so long, but be sure your sins will find you out!"

Maximus69:


We were given all that's needed to survive (keep living) but in most cases we CHOOSE not to, so we return to non-existence!

Wow, dude... Like, grooooovy. That was, like, you know, some really heavy shit, man. Faaaar oooout...lol... But, you know, like, uh, I, like, think maybe, dude, maybe, uh, maybe..... uhhhh... you know, like maybe you are, like, you know, not considering THIS, man...

Golden gilded grasshoppers gripping green gossamer growths greedily gnaw gleaming grapes gaining gratifying gastric genuflection.

So, you know, it's all like, you know, a matter of perspective, ...

Maximus69:
Good morning!

Morning. I see you survived the night.

Maximus69:


I'm truly sorry for being naughty Ma, but
you're much more beautiful when you frown!

Believe me, I KNOW. My husband tells me it makes me look more fiesty. And there was a time back in my younger days I had to walk around in public with a stupid smile on my face at all times. Because if I had frowned for any reason, I would have to beat the swarm of men away with a feather duster.

Maximus69:


Once you've seen them, then you don't need chatting with me ma, i'm just a piece of rubbish without them.

So don't bother responding to stupid Maximus, you've met my family members, continue discussing with my teachers!

Tell ya what, you darling little rascal, when you stop posting I'll stop responding to you. How 'bout it? Sounds like a fair deal to me...

Maximus69:


Let us keep the claim aside for now since we now have an agreement.

You don't believe in the existence of God but i do, you demand tolerance from all other people and i do as well.

So whatever i believe or claim shouldn't be a problem anymore, after all you also have yours.

Let's just be friends, as long as you and i continue to TOLERATE each other in the neighborhood!

Why keep your claim aside? You made it, I do not believe you without evidence.

Regarding your claim to christianity when your founders decided to adopt the long defunct "Arian heresy" you were declared anathema by mainstream christianity as we know it today.

Your claimed membership of a cult that has an adulation of "paul" and frequent changes to its substantive doctrine render you less than reliable when it comes to your invitations to join such a closed, cruel society.

The adherence to cult practises such as shunning, render your claim to be christian hollow at best. Mendacious, as you have only too willingly displayed here in your posts.

Lets us also not forget your cult's dismal remarks and stance at the Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sex Abuse, shameful.

Never mind the willingness your cult displays in disowning family members when they disagree with the "elders" or accuse them of abuse, and even allowing members of families to die rather than take advantage of modern science. Cruelty and barbarism, no "tolerance" there. .

I will show such tolerance to you as you show to a young girl who wishes to leave the cult.........or a child who accuses an elder of sexual abuse. I know the procedure your cult adopts in that case...do you?

And please do not come on with the "vilification" theme, the testimony at the Royal Commission and the attestations of so many ex cultists give the lie to that epithet.

Maximus69:


There you go again!

If it's about the way i insulted you at first, then i tender an apology.

I'm not asking you to come and worship my God, all i'm saying is Jehovah's Witnesses (true Christians) are totally different from those noisemakers saying all sort of gibberish in your streets and public buses, we approach you and accord you due respect, discuss freely with you to know your thoughts on issues and find a way to start relating as neighbours that's all.

It's when you see the benefits of what we are doing that you'll decide whether to join our global family or remain just a friend.

That's what tolerance is all about!

It might interest you to know I just had a very pleasant meeting with a couple of your brethren yesterday. Yep, we spent almost three hours here in my living room discussing various aspects of creation and your god's perfection. Oddly enough, unlike you, the two gentlemen who arrived were very mature, polite, and engaging. I thoroughly enjoyed our conversation, and it is very likely they will return in the near future to continue our discussion. Hmmmm... Perhaps you should pay a visit to your nearest Kingdom Hall and brush up a bit on your people skills... lol...

Maximus69:


Great!

So now that we have an agreement, will you give me a hi~five from?

You are about as much JW as I am Mohican. Muppet.

Maximus69:


Well that cartoon depicts the misinformed churchgoers spewing their gibberish in our neighborhood, NOT Christians!

The Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) has a history of setting dates for the end of times; then having the dates pass without it happening.

You are NOT what you claim

hupernikao:


It is either you arent reading what you posted or you are actually at the peak of close mindedness.

Oh look, it purports to be in a position to lecture me. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

The irony of being accused of "closed mindedness" by a mythology fanboy is truly delicious to savour. What part of "I found peer reviewed scientific papers that destroy your smug, self-satisfied, complacent and hubristic assertions" do you not understand?

hupernikao:
What you posted is not new and have been inferred over time on how dream can come and processed. The technology either was borrowed from the field of image processing/virtual signaling.

So the fact that scientists are able to gather data on dreams, which destroys your assertions on this subject, is an inconvenient fact you're going to ignore in typical mythology fanboy fashion?

hupernikao:
I asked you of details of dream content,

What part of "the researchers demonstrated that their computer was able to classify dream content reliably from the fMRI data" did you fail to understand from my post?

hupernikao:

that is why such of it, you are posting a research yet to even conclude on a fact that dream can be tested.

This lie of yours is so transparent in the light of the content of those papers, as to be beneath deserving of a point of view.

hupernikao:

Like i said there is nothing new to logic in all you put up there, the author its self still agreed that dreams are subjective.

But, wait for it, we now have objective data we can call upon to determine the content thereof. Courtesy of the fact that different dream content is the result of the activation of different parts of the brain. Once again, it's neurochemistry all the way down, and you have no answer to this, other than to peddle fatuous assertions and risible apologetic fabrications.

hupernikao:
The basis, foundation of this research up there is still anchor on measurable experience (real life/lifestyle) of the individual or others prior to dream.That is the baseline.

A comparison of computerized imagery generated from anchoring tubes on individual arent new to science. In field of image processing, that is the foundation, a basis must exist to compare and generate or inferred a result.

Oh wait, you do realise that both dreams and hallucinations have been documented to be grounded in past real world experience, even when bizarre reworkings thereof form part of the content? Indeed, my six foot cockroach from my meningitis episode in 1994 is here to point and laugh at you in this regard. Would I have hallucinated a six foot cockroach without a prior background in invertebrate zoology? Methinks not.

Oh, and apparently you haven't learned from your own exposition above, that without data, you have nothing.

hupernikao:
That basis of comparison in this case is still the human experiential capability and not far from what was documented even in the Bible you questioned most:

Ecclesiastes 5:11
For a dream cometh through the multitude of business; and a fool's voice is known by multitude of words.

Ah, regurgitation of mythological assertion. Which means nothing. Because we've all seen mythology fanboys like you turn up here, presenting contradictory apologetic assertions about what said mythology is purportedly telling us. Which has much to do with the fact that mythology fanboys like you have no data to call upon.

hupernikao:
That places some dreams in such realm. Not a new thing. What we spoke about was explaining the reason for its content: i quote myself again.

Love the sound of the music of the spheres of your own verbal diarrhoea, don't you?

As those papers demonstrate, we're now in a position to determine with reliability said dream content from fMRI data. Which destroys your assertion.

hupernikao:

That was my quote, and that isn't address in that work.

Yes it is and you know it. You're doing nothing here but doubling down on your shit.

Quite simply, the data tells us that dreams arise because of neurochemical events in the brain during sleep, events that have both a chemical and electrical signature. Please explain to us all how this basic fact is purportedly "wrong", given that dreams can be influenced by the consumption of psychoactive substances before sleep, and have been documented being thus influenced? Indeed, a simple food such as cheese can exert a detectable effect, courtesy of the fact that cheese is rich in the amino acid tryptophan, and tryptophan is converted to serotonin in the brain, serotonin being, of course, a well known, well documented and powerful neurotransmitter.

hupernikao:

The focus of that work is to know what was dreamt not why. Except you also want to make a costly assumption made in that research:

Oh here we go with the mythology fanboy erection of "assumptions" ... seen plenty of this shit from creationists ...

hupernikao:

A VERY BIG ASSUMPTION made in the research is that ALL DREAMS COME FROM A BASE EXPERIENCE OR A PRIOR EXPOSURE TO INFORMATION, HENCE THE ESSENCE IT IS BENCHMARK WITH PREVIOUS DREAM RECORDS/INDIVIDUAL ACTIVITY TO EXPLAIN.

This isn't an "assumption", it's a documented fact. this paper alone is but one of many documenting this, viz:

Rapid eye movement (REM) sleep and its main oscillatory feature, frontal theta, have been related to the processing of recent emotional memories. As memories constitute much of the source material for our dreams, we explored the link between REM frontal theta and the memory sources of dreaming, so as to elucidate the brain activities behind the formation of dream content. Twenty participants were woken for dream reports in REM and slow wave sleep (SWS) while monitored using electroencephalography. Eighteen participants reported at least one REM dream and 14 at least one SWS dream, and they, and independent judges, subsequently compared their dream reports with log records of their previous daily experiences. The number of references to recent waking-life experiences in REM dreams was positively correlated with frontal theta activity in the REM sleep period. No such correlation was observed for older memories, nor for SWS dreams. The emotional intensity of recent waking-life experiences incorporated into dreams was higher than the emotional intensity of experiences that were not incorporated. These results suggest that the formation of wakefulness-related dream content is associated with REM theta activity, and accords with theories that dreaming reflects emotional memory processing taking place in REM sleep

hupernikao:

As it is in most research, this is a very grievous error cum assumption.

Except it isn't an "assumption", nor is it an error.

Here's a clue for you ... you would do better here if you had paid attention in classes devoted to the real world.

hupernikao:


All your response are full of so many assumptions and pretense from realities of what most of yours (folks) claim. It is called unstable.
I will respond fully in due time.

Swell.

Meanwhile, here are a few questions you seem determined to continue ignoring:

[1] What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
[2] How many scientific facts do you deny that don't in any way contradict any part of your superstitious religious beliefs?
[3] How many beliefs that form no part of your superstitious religious beliefs, do you hold that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for? (list them please)
[4] Since you insist on repeatedly and dishonestly rehashing an argumentum ignorantiam fallacy that attempts to reverse your burden of proof, please tell us what "proof" you have that unicorns and mermaids, and all other deities humans have ever created are not real?

That'll do for a start.... no more of your dishonest evasion now, you have come to me, so piss, or get off the pot!

Maximus69:


Hmmmmmmmm, perhaps you still need to consult other atheists on Nairaland to know more about Maximus69.

I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses, we don't participate in the political affairs anywhere we are, because we believe that all humans came from one family and we're here to unite the OBEDIENT ones as one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers globally!

For your information ATHEISM is no match for Jehovah's Witnesses, because your group only depends on COMPARING THEMSELVES WITH RELIGIONISTS TO JUSTIFY YOUR STAND.

With that, Jehovah's Witnesses (the one and only true Christian group) will surely disqualify you with the way and manner we are organized, that's when we will know who becomes intolerant towards the other between your folks and my global family!

Lol. Too funny

Maximus69:

You're not getting my point.

Oh, don't worry. Rest assured I am definitely getting your "point". I'm sure others are as well. Problem, though, is your "point" is about as sharp as a pound of warm chicken livers.......

Hmmm... Speaking of chicken livers, I'm getting hungry lol ...