₦airaland Forum

Uyi Iredia: The bad news is I think what you are saying is false. The good news is you say its hypothetical.

False in what way? I need to juggle it in my head, need opinions

berylLOL: well, I didn't open this thread to be asked questions by somehow who obviously can't use his brain. Thanks for stopping by, now gtfoh

Heh heh. I'm not done yet. I like it here, it's a public forum. You asked for atheists to address this, we're doing that now. You cannot even tell us any anecdotal stories, let alone provide proof of these miracles we're supposed to have opinions of? That's a particularly stoopid thing to do, indicating you may have been dropped on your head as an infant. Wishful thinking, I know, as it's probably genetic. I would have preferred you didn't worsen our already sorry gene pool in this country.

Answer the question. You go to hospitals but believe in the eediocy that are miracles, yes?


To be fair, I'm not reading your posts per se, they're a bit too m.oronic to shift through, so you may have answered this before.

advocate666: Except nothing makes the existence of multiverses impossible. Infact, it is more probable than a unique verse seeing that our universe is expanding. What is this expansion? Is it an expansion or a deformation caused by the "gravitational" pull of other verses? What is it "expanding" into?

If those universes can affect ours then they exist. We can confirm their existence. The argument is valid only for those that cannot affect us, or any other sentient life, in any way physically.


On a random note, expanding into what is another topic I can't get my head around yet. Apparently, nothing. It's possibly the paradox of infinity getting bigger, heh.

I'm not sure why religious people need god(s) to be amazed, it's plenty crazy as is.

Uyi Iredia: So what were the ingredients. And how come the cooking took billions of years. And are you saying constants created humans and other lifeforms ?

Not sure what you're asking of, but most of this is down to chance, and potentially trillions upon trillions of efforts at any given moment. The multi-verse spitting out new universes, or even multi-verses, randomly. Just like how in this universe planets are being formed, some capable of supporting life, others not.

The constants determine the forces, the forces determine the laws of physics. So yes, they determine the nature of a universe.


You do know this is all hypothetical, yes? Just to be sure, don't want anyone assuming I state this as fact

berylLOL: now this is funny..read my question slowly and tell me how this relates to it.

Who says that has to do with any of your inane questions except the one where you ask me if there was a problem you d.olt?

advocate666: Interesting but my mind thinks it's a fallacious argument to affirm that a propbable possibility does not exist because you cannot access it.

Maybe. But really, if it cannot be verified in any way, like our good friend dog, you might as well be atheistic to its existence, no?

Hello /religion. Now, this thread is not as trollish as my usual fare, or is it?

There's the popular question:

"If a tree falls down in a forest with no ears around, does it make a sound?"

Well, that's probably not exactly how it goes, but you get the point. Without any life around to register the event, does it make a sound? Some would say no

For now our cosmos is all there is, probably all that ever will be, as far as mainstream science is concerned. But there are proponents of a multi-verse, a meta universe that contains our universe along with billions, or potentially more, of other universes. The idea being that these universes are born and die in this great multi-universe, all with their different parameters or constants, all with their variations of physical laws. Heck, it could also be a regress, that is the multi-verse is actually a child of another multi-verse, and so on.

Now, supposing there are other universes out there that cannot be accessed by intelligent life in any way at all. Universes which could not, even indirectly, affect any of the universes that support life, can one really say these universes exists?

For the most part, no. You cannot verify it, it cannot affect you or any other intelligent life in any way, it is a total non entity.

Now here's the thing, this implies that for a universe to exist, there must be a conscious, sentient lifeform around to verify its existence. So existing universe MUST support sentient life (or at least be accessible to universes that support life). So when you wonder, how comes life in this universe? Well, that's inevitable. The universe had to have the parameters to support life* else it wouldn't exist. Simple.

Hmmmm....



*in our case just about. As everything wants us dead, it took billions of years cooking to come up with us, constants setup just about right, etc

berylLOL: been a year now..any problem?

Yes. You use hospitals but see nothing wrong with others being encouraged not to go?

pleep: No i 'meant' to say exactly what i said. "Its not fair in the sense that everyone gets what they want" and it isn't. Do not put words in my mouth. Some men didn't like the system and some women didn't, That is why it changed. What i am saying is collectively the system is now, and always has been balanced; men benefit in some ways, women benefit in other ways... bla bla bla i've said it a million times. If you don't want to accept the truth, i don't care dude, you are not the first dumbass in the world.

Where is this truth you speak of? It's balanced how? You tell say one thing, then retract as you fumble. Ahh, wait, I think we're coming to that...

pleep: And "i'm making war sound like some kind of noble idea" wtf? The only reason why i bring up those wars is because they illustrate my point to a tee. At the same time first wave and second wave feminism were convincing the world that women needed more rights... thousands of men were getting forced to give up their right to life for their country. In Europe these men couldn't vote either. The irony of this situation was not lost on people back then, (mid 19th cent) and for that reason most women at that time actually did not want sufferage. There were not brainwashed they were smart, they thought voting would be the slippery slope to military conscription.

...Here again!

So, you accept wars are a necessary evil? Then why do you expect some reward from the women? It's something that had to be done, yes or no? Basically your duty, yes? Or, again, did you do it for personal profit, like lording over females? Same would apply to females and the well documented dangers of child birth for the very vast majority of our history, no? Or they did it just to be lorded over? Not to mention focus all their being into providing loving households, of course just so they could call us daddy. They've never made sacrifices. 4k you're stoopid.

And your last line, I remember a joan d'arc going through a few hurdles to get into the military, as well as female volunteers during the french revolution that actively participated (well, france was unique in its way). Of course most obviously wouldn't be interested, just like most non-sheeple men wouldn't be either. But that's besides the point you m.oron, because they did not have any say in the matter, at all. Like my black female voter they were denied equal opportunities to attain what us dudes achieved or having a say in their destiny because of something beyond their control, their vagoo, not on merit. That's discrimination, clear as daylight. Discrimination is NEVER fair under any conditions, any at all.

Today we still have issues with intolerance, but that's another issue.

pleep: No its frustrating to talk about history to people who don't know anything about history. All of you guys are grossly missinformed and trying to explain complex concepts to yall is like trying to teach algebra to a Gerbil
And ppl wonder why i have my signature... well its because there are only like 5 smart posters on this entire website. ( you are not one of them)

Actually, I'm quite pleased you don't think me smart, as I don't think you know what the words mean. For instance, a smart person would rather than post this nonsense have shown me how I was wrong, no? Or at least stfu. Is it that you can't show me how? Well then, I'll assume I was right. Or you're trying to cover up your eediocy with red herrings of a sort?

pleep: Its not like people sat together and made that decision ... its the human mating agreemen... Every other animal has one. And are you aware that no one could vote for most of human history? Yes kid, back in the olden times we were ruled by kings and queens.

Most other animals would also Bleep their mothers if given the chance. We could adopt that if you think we should be picking up behavior and ethics from the animal kingdom.

When were we talking about medieval europe anyhow? And even if no one could vote then, both male and female, how does that translate to no discrimination against them, or the absence of a patriarchal system? Genius

pleep: Um... you dumbass... men were drafted into wars for most of human history...That means there were forced you stopid mangina r.etard. And you may be surprised to know i'm not even "pro -traditionalist" it really doesn't matter to me either way, all i want is the truth. No matter how much you dumb feminist men whine and bytch you cant cover up the truth.

Again, women have never had to make sacrifices. Yes, I know. Heh heh, imbe.cile

Random: Mangina me? Hypocritical, don't you think? Especially since I very readily admit quite a few women perpetuate the problem, and I've done so already. You'd think that would clue you in to deducing I'm not the biggest fan of the typical female bs, hmm? My aim isn't to be some nice guy eediot. It's to be, what's the concept you've deluded yourself into thinking you comprehend, logical. And fair as well I suppose, to all parties. You, on the other hand, sound like someone pretty scared females with power. You have nothing to fear, trust me, vagoos are not poisonous (most of the time)

pleep: And nigga i really don't care what you think anymore... you can believe what you want. But the fact is that in the west atleast, Patriachy was and is today a balanced system.

Heh heh

Just a note though, if you really are old, like you seem proud to be, I hope you're in the diaspora. Please keep your cancer there. I hope you understand, we've had many an old man f.uck up this country royally. They tend to be goats like you, so pls pls don't come back, not even to visit.

Reyginus: You can't?! Wonders.

No, I won't

But I already have before anyways

bamto: You see what I mean? No, you don't! You're so blinded by your little knowledge that you let loose so much hate on the 'religious fellas' At what point did I say u should accept my position cos I said so? You seem to be desperate on holding to the straw of fury and wrath while you sink in atheism. Fury and wrath have never validated any belief/unbelief; and it won't start with you.
Be a little open-minded; be a little tolerant; be a little humble; else, you'll confidently walk into damnation! I warn you. I warn you. I have warned you!

And very humble of you to show up demanding we disprove your fairy tales and are fools for not being deluded..

Oga, you've not said anything with this nonsense. You're an eediot so nothing wrong with calling you one, no point your in complaining. For instance, I've already pointed out that I'm open minded, very much so. If I wasn't, I would still be religious, no?

Atheist NEVER claim to have all the knowledge, in fact we usually go to pains to stress this. All we know; no gods. No evidence for one, even logical, so no need to assume one, at all. However, you assume by default in sky tyrants, and expect everyone to sheeple along with you. You claim to know the answer to everything; dog. You've never shown us this dog though, silly empty threats are not evidence. You think me some kid you scaring with ojuju stories? Abi u go jazz me with holy spirit? Arrogance and stoopidity combine born you ne?

So again, we aren't making the claims here, we never were. If you expect atheists to be disproving what you've not even proven, then you are a m.oron. You understand that, yes?

Reyginus: I think we are done with google. The same google you got all your links from, I got mine. I think it's time we think since google is confused. Can we?

This "think" you like to think you are capable of doing, I've done quite a few times already. I've explained in my own words over and over and over again, but you seem to have missed that.

No we can't. I can't understand why you're suggesting ignorance, it borders on being silly. If all my arguments were built around google searches then you'd have grounds to complain, but that is clearly not so.

You no dey tire sef. This is over more or else, and has been for some time

pleep: @ Wiegraf What the hell are you talking about? Both men and women suffer under any system, its not "fair" in the sense that everyone gets what they want. How many times to i have do say i don't care about that? Patriarchy is balanced in the sense that both genders have equivalent benefits and downsides.

This is why i think feminists are insane... did patriarchy cause women to die during childbirth answer this you dumb monkey...what does patriarchy have to do with women dying at childbirth?

With the first bolded, you mean to say it is fair you d.olt, not "not fair". Once again you speak for everyone despite acknowledging quite a few didn't get what they wanted, and had no choice in the matter.

Regardless, one of your justifications for pointing out patriarchy is justified is; men take risks, die in wars, etc. If you're so re.tarded you can't see how women risking their lives through history at child birth is not relevant then I'd suggest you shut up.

The baby making machines that have existed through time, giving birth to football teams with the world class medical care of the ages no less, do you think they weren't taking risks?

And concerning rights, again, you think they all wanted that? You think most even knew better? They were programmed to be sheep, you do know that yes?

Men and wars is in no way any excuse to view or treat women like children. You make it sound as if wars are some noble endeavor sef, but that's another topic

pleep: Like i have said a million times... Women traded control and power for physical safety and stability. The fact that women did not have the right to vote was balanced out by the fact that most men didnt either, and females were not drafted into wars etc etc etc.

I feel like i am talking to children.

Most men didn't have the right to vote? But only men had the right yes? Were women given any say in this decision? Let me see, ahhh, they couldn't vote. You m.oron.


The men excluded were usually excluded due to some sort of financial reason, land or taxes. It was not blind discrimination, it was merit. Merit that applied only to white men. That "white men" bit is discrimination, or do you think a black woman could have done something about that, hmm? Like say become a white man, yes? Interesting

Btw, as I know it, by mid 19th century most white men had the right to vote. Black men, not too long after in some states/conditions. Women? Not fully until 1920. Usa law is complicated, but your assertion that most white men couldn't vote, I assume you mean for the majority of us history, is probably wrong. Not so with women. I'll have to verify that though, but it matters little. The paragraphs above are all that matter actually



Also see the part about rights above in relation to the eediocy I bolded.




So, shifting away from your shenanigans a bit, your argument boils down to men traditionally take more risks than women and so the system, which denied a lot of rights and opportunity to women, was justified. This is patently silly, women took risks as well. Even by your own admission they made sacrifices.

On a fairly random note, nobody forced us dudes to take risks btw. Or you do it just because you want tail? Mayhaps you signed a contract with females for us all which states that we'll go to war in exchange for regular sandwiches, back rubs, good Bleep and the right to treat them as children whenever we wish. Nothing to do with simply wanting to do the right thing, we just want to be a petty tyrants at home. The women sacrificing at home as well, they don't do it simply because it's the right thing to do? Maybe they do it just so they can call us 'big daddy'


After your screw ups you claim you feel like you're talking to children? What do they call them, ad hominems? When you have no more points? Heh heh

Logicboy03: Lol are you Sagamite?


Just because I do not want to seriously engage with you because you're a deluded male chauvinist doesnt mean that you destroyed my points.


Your whole argument is foolish. You argue that a patriarchal system is fair to women and it balances out.


Do you even know why it is called "patriarchal" in the first place? Because it is ruled and favourable to men!


I pity your wife, sister and daughter.

While the bold could be a misnomer, not so in this case. He claims it is, yet cannot show how. Actually, better yet, he does then he retracts. I thought stoopid was confined to /religion, but it seems abundant in NL...

I should be working...4k

pleep: You may be a man, but you are the dumbest bytch i have ever seen. Of course not all women want a man who is richer than them, i am speaking in general. I made that fact abundantly clear you stupid prick. Read my quotes again; "Women almost universally want their partner to have more money than them." "Over 90% would agree with me." You see monkey, i never said all i spoke about most. You cant understand generalities because you have no logic.

Well, re.tards are going to be re.tarded I suppose. You accused me of not knowing that fact, I never said that about you.

pleep: Women almost universally want their partner to have more money than them. I will say that no matter how many of yall disagree with me because in that dusty corner of your brain, were your unused rationallity resides, you know i am right. If you were to conduct a poll of all the women in the united states ill bet over 90% would agree with me, so ill regard w/e you say to the contrary as lies for the sake of argument.

I was pointing out I am very aware of that you m.oron. I never said you were not generalizing. 4k you're stoopid.

pleep: And for the last time i don't care if some women don't want a wealthier partner, that has nothing to do with my argument. There are some people who don't like patriarchy and some who do, all i'm saying is that its a fair and balanced system. Both genders have advantages and disadvantages.

You seem intent on ignoring those forced against their will to conform. Well, great genius, how does that have nothing to do with your argument? Being forced against your will to do something you don't want to has nothing to do with how fair a system is? Interesting.

pleep: Get this straight, if don't care if men get forced to die in war, and i don't care if you get forced to die in war. The only reason why i bring that up is to show the other side of the system that no one thinks about.

Again, so if men dying in wars is not what you use to justify treating women as children, what is? Mayhaps women dying at child birth? Should we ignore that as well?

What is it that justifies you calling the system fair? Especially historically, like I asked earlier on. Maybe this?

pleep: And @ Wiegraf about your dumb voting "discimination". At the same time feminists were fighting for the right to vote in the 1860's 620,000 men died in the civil war. When they fought for the right to vote in the 20th century millions of men were drafted to die in WW1... when they fought for the right to leave the home in the 60's 300 men were dying every single day in Vietnam. and most of them didn't have the vote either

You eediot....lol

What justifies this

pleep: @ Everyone who is able to think logically, The patriarchal system balaces out.

Women trade control and freedom for physical safety and stability, while men trade physical safety for control and access to reproduction. Females were seen as inferior but it was like a child to an adult, not a human to an animal. less capable than men but yet still more valuable and worthy of chivalry. This is why men gave their lives for women in the titanic disaster. From the female perspective patriarchy is like a controlling boyfriend, not this evil oppressor like feminists like to portray. There are some societies were this system works out unfairly to females but the United States is not one of them.

pleep: Women almost universally want their partner to have more money than them. I will say that no matter how many of yall disagree with me because in that dusty corner of your brain, were your unused rationallity resides, you know i am right. If you were to conduct a poll of all the women in the united states ill bet over 90% would agree with me, so ill regard w/e you say to the contrary as lies for the sake of argument.

I dont care if you are insulted, its the truth. Yea women were restricted and many didn't like it but in the West the system was fair then, and is fair now. I'm sorry but some people dont buy into your never ending struggle narrative

Are you mad because i destroyed your points in that discusion? Man the hell up bro, you are acting like a punk. I know this is gunna sound mysogenistic, but you mangina feminist men act exactly like little girls and its pathetic.

Ah shut up with your nonsense about having some logic. Frankly, you sound as mo.ronic as they come. Please don't abuse the word logic. Do I ever say most women do not usually want their spouses to be richer? I even go as far as saying some women would not want equality you dol.t.

What I say is that NOT ALL women want that nonsense, and you've failed to show why they should be forced to acquiesce to the majority. I'll be waiting for your logic to show me how


And the asinine levels of your comment about war is off the charts. And so what? Because men were dying that means women do not deserve equal rights? Do you know how many women have died from child birth since the dawn of time? Perhaps us dudes (I wonder why think I'm female, not all of us are neanderthals) shouldn't be allowed to vote considering that, yes?

truthislight: fruit what?

"dont you know that to whom you yield yourselves as servants to obey, his servants you are to him since you obey obey him? whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?" (Romans 6:16).

Who did Adam and eve obeyed?

Well, who they obeyed, such is his master and his children also.

Bros, I never understand anything you say, and I've told you this before. We speak different languages. No silly rhetorical questions, what happened in the garden of eden? Do I need a PhD to get it or not?

berylLOL: so you are talking based on just your family members and a few dead people around you right? Ok.

Do you go to hospitals, enlightened one?

pleep: @ Everyone who is able to think logically, The patriarchal system balaces out.

Women trade control and freedom for physical safety and stability, while men trade physical safety for control and access to reproduction. Females were seen as inferior but it was like a child to an adult, not a human to an animal. less capable than men but yet still more valuable and worthy of chivalry. This is why men gave their lives for women in the titanic disaster. From the female perspective patriarchy is like a controlling boyfriend, not this evil oppressor like feminists like to portray. There are some societies were this system works out unfairly to females but the United States is not one of them.

You see the bolded, for the first one, add this comment as well:

pleep: Societal or not, women generally prefer partners who earn more money than them, and they have a right too.

This is just silly. You speak for all women? Who the hell do you think you are? Maybe I should go over and dictate to you what you can and cannot do as well.


The second bolded in the first qoute I make, no matter how you spin it, is patently false. Today things may be acceptably equal in the US, but you mean to say historically it has been so? When did they get the vote, in the 20's, yes? You know how much work was required to get to the stage we are at today?

Don't perpetuate nonsense just because you want to play big daddy. And more importantly, don't assume you know best for everyone, it is ridiculously insulting. Merit. That is all.

Reyginus: so?

You want me to knowingly become ignorant? Wetin u dey smoke?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

You've been calling hubble the originator for a while despite naming lemaitre and freidman earlier....*smh*

wiki: Hubble's law is the name for the astronomical observation in physical cosmology that: (1) all objects observed in deep space (intergalactic space) are found to have a Doppler shift observable relative velocity to Earth, and to each other; and (2) that this Doppler-shift-measured velocity, of various galaxies receding from the Earth, is proportional to their distance from the Earth and all other interstellar bodies. In effect, the space-time volume of the observable universe is expanding and Hubble's law is the direct physical observation of this process.[1] It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model.

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the General Relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed that the Universe is expanding and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.[2][3][4][5][6] Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.[7] The recession velocity of the objects was inferred from their redshifts, many measured earlier by Vesto Slipher (1917) and related to velocity by him.[8]

Expanding in regards to earth and EACH OTHER. Uniform expansion != explosion, which would have a centre....


This is pathetic bros. If you're for a name the scientific community has been trying to sell, to no avail as BB is quite catchy, try the cosmic expansion model. Here, scholarly articles on the subject


http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=cosmic+expansion+model&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=YurcUI_iNYid0QXxq4GAAg&ved=0CDEQgQMwAA

bamto: Theists hardly set out to prove the existence of God. Any reasonable human being who can behold nature and living things would readily come to terms with his existence. Whereas Atheists set out to prove the non-existence of God but end up merely denying his existence.
I have no qualms with anyone manifesting/propagating his beliefs/unbeliefs. What I find stinking is the arrogance displayed by many an Atheist especially on this forum in doing this. When you play All-Knowing in your analysis of issues, are you not inadvertently playing God?

You're an eediot. The genuine, pure thing. Of the highest quality

Ah, that felt good

Get this through your head, we don't set out to prove anything. Yes, even those who seem extremely aggressive, including the colossal eediots from states that actively persecute religions like communist ussr. Why? Because it has never, ever, been proven that god(s) exist. Your beliefs are based on... Faith. How wonderful. Yet you somehow misconstrue these as facts? Wow. Well, fairy tales may have been considered evidence during the times when the round wheel was a novel invention, but it hasn't been so for a very long time. You'll need to have your head out of your a$$ to notice though

How stoopid and arrogant of you to assume everyone should accept your position simply because you say so. Then you come around calling people fools and arrogant because they don't share delusion?

A religious person accusing atheists of playing god? Ok, so when I die I'm going to hell, yes? How do you know this? A story book told you so?

Heh heh. You m.oron...

Woman, you asked a question. You want something from us, yes? Then answer the damned question. What sort of miracle did you experience?

This universe is plenty, plenty strange with or without invisible men. Science acknowledges quite a few things that leaves one bamboozled. More ridiculous at first sight than even religious nonsense. Doesn't mean it's magic though, as its all been proven, verified and ultimately, make a whole lot of sense. It isn't close minded at all, nor are most atheists. We simply don't accept nonsense, like miracles.

If you make unverified claims of miracles that cannot be validated then please don't waste our time. Go and find something you can prove and can be investigated by others. Else I might as well believe santa was very busy a few nights back. He's simply invisible, has a time machine, and can manipulate memories.

Kay 17: Are you serious??!

You believe the big Ban.g must have an explosion, because of b.ang inspite of what the proponets say?!

Wiegraf went thru great lengths to explain that big ban.g was coined by a critic originall to ridicule the theory.

Reg u don't have any more points.

Seriously, the amount of procastinating I've been doing recently has balooned, or expanded, again... *smh* . I guess I go work now oga...

Reyginus: The expansion is the effect. That's how. Lol. There are two ways any word can be interpreted. It is either denotative or connotative. Anything short of this, like you're doing with the 'big bang', is not acceptable.
I didn't say scientists don't make mistakes, but that the words 'big bang' couldn't have been mistaken.
Just like calling a thing rock, but describing water.
Are we not done with google?

No.

What sort of ignorance are you encouraging now?

Kai, na wa ohhh, lwkmd

Reyginus: You are not getting it. Before anything can be termed a process, their must be a concord with its etymology and what it seeks to explain. That synergy is evidently lacking, if we are to follow your explanation.
You don't have to look at it like that. To be accurate, the syllables in the word are seperated from each other. Then individually, before later co-joining to get the meaning. In 'evolution', we have a poly-syllabic word, 4 syllables precisely. But if you are observant, you would see 'evolve' as the root meaning. 'tion', 'the state of'. Now to the latin side. 'Unrolling' in the connotative sense, is to have different phases of a particular thing. Because a thing rolling is not stagnant, it moves. The circular motion it creates while moving indicates it is happening within an entity. Their is a connection.
Quanta, is not about how much? Really? SMH.
Can we say that of the 'big b.ang'?

Like how you deduced from the term that an expansion is involved?

Or how you are cognizant of the fact that your interpretion of those words is subjective, like the bolded indicates.

And this has naught to do with this actually, as term is a *drum rolls please*............ Misnomer!

Suddenly you trust scientists to not make mistakes. Incredible. I thought your initial argument is they make unfounded claims and therefore cannot be trusted. Most unfounded claims look like mistakes or accidents to me. You've changed your mind so soon? To suit your needs maybe? But this is no mistake actually, I've told you how the term originated.

Simple google of the question, "was the big b.ang an explosion?", no need to even add expansion to the search, then please tell me what 90+% of the credible results say. Especially the ones not dumbed down. For instance, look at the peer reviewed scholarly articles (all of those clearly state expansion)...


Na wa.

Reyginus: Lol. This question is clueless. The thing is, evolution and relativity are not wrongly used as you claimed with the big bang. The words point to changes and relativism. Apply it to the big ban.g. Has their ever being any theory, whose meaning cannot be drawn from how it is termed?

Erm, so, evolution and gr cannot be called processes? You do realize that was what that response was for, yes?

Regardless, let's examine our latest strawmen. Are you sure science didn't introduce the words into english lexicon? The word 'evolution' comes from a latin word which means unrolling. Hmm. In most cases one wouldn't say evolution is about unrolling, yes?

Quanta comes from a word that means 'how much'. Interesting, it seems to say nothing about small sizes.

Regardless of origin of words, I'm not sure how one would know gr is related to gravity without being explicitly told so, or do you?

And big ban.g doesn't say anything about the processes involved of course, as most people do not associate violent expansions with
explosions. Just as you seemingly were not able to deduce the expansion from the term, even if you erroneously attributed it to an explosion (btw, I hope you can spot sarcasm)

You are wasting time with this particularly silly nonsense. You've been shown evidence EVERWHERE that it does not say anything about explosions.

Science does NOT make unfounded claims then pass them up as fact. Therefore it would not add explosions to the BB THEORY (note the word theory, indicating a framework, you know, like other scientific theories) when there is no reason whatsoever to add one. Shikena.

Thank you though for demonstrating the difference between the scientific method and the religious approach. Science doesn't draw conclusions then attempt to make nature conform to them, it does the opposite. No evidence (even logical), then no explosion. You want to add explosions, suit yourself. I suppose you should add god as well if it makes you happier. But non of these requirements are scientific in any shape or form, they are unfounded claims made by your subjective bias. They have absolutely nothing to do with the evidence, logical or empirical.

Atheist:-D:


They have a cunning answer to that.

Oddly enough, I think this particular heathenish brah is actually xtian

Well, there are all sorts of xtians I suppose...

I can't forget the case of a friends father who prayed the hiv away. They even had parties, testimonies, etc. He died shortly after, leaving them in penury as well. It didn't make them less religious of course. This particular scenario is obviously rather common, compared to y'alls ie

pleep: @ Everyone who is able to think logically, The patriarchal system balaces out.

Women trade control and freedom for physical safety and stability, while men trade physical safety for control and access to reproduction. Females were seen as inferior but it was like a child to an adult, not a human to an animal. less capable than men but yet still more valuable and worthy of chivalry. This is why men gave their lives for women in the titanic disaster. From the female perspective patriarchy is like a controlling boyfriend, not this evil oppressor like feminists like to portray. There are some societies were this system works out unfairly to females but the United States is not one of them.

Adults are adults, that's all that should matter. Physiological differences should have no say on laws and what not. Salient difference is one group physically conceives children, the other doesn't. Accommodations should be made for that. Anything else? No. At all.

This also means one cannot say harass another sexually and expect to get away with it because they're of the 'weaker' or 'fairer' sex. Or indeed get special favors of any sort (except of course those involving the obvious physiological difference). It works both ways, equal rights, opportunities, etc etc for everyone. Decisions should be based on merit, this does not include gender, skin color, height, etc.

Of course, many women dread this as well

They work as placebos for some. And not just for medicine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Placebos are NOT real cures. And most certainly don't do anything to solve the actual problem (physically, at least).

What it highlights though is the power of perception to some, they're a completely subjective affair. It leads some to believe the situation is better than what it actually is, while for others, no. And for those who gain this sort of positive outlook, it is useful to them only in certain situations while harmful in others. For instance, it may give them hope and the will to persevere, but in situations like 9ja where the system is markedly broken, placebos are insidious. When used foo.lishly it aids things like 'suffering and smiling', lazyness, inane decision making, etc.

I suppose you could say it helps some see the glass as half full, not half empty. However, if success depended on that glass of water and it's empty, yet you still insisted on the glass being half full, then you're clearly deluded and bound to fail. You should be planning accordingly and looking for water in those cases.

So note, quite a few people most certainly do not need placebos to function (frankly, I'd consider suing a doctor that gives me one if I could), and it's basically lying, even if at times it is for an ostensibly good cause. Also, on their own, if the problem is severe, then they can't do anything for anyone. Their insidious nature fully rears its ugly head in these situations.

You're welcome to believe in whatever rocks your boat though, of course.

Overkill? Maybe. The issue is with the poem being read publicly, the school should not have had her read it aloud in the first place. It's (obviously) in no way her fault though. As to why she should not have been allowed to present it, religious freedom, as they said. This means NO religion gets a say in how the government or public institutions are run, non get endorsed or encouraged. They get in, they are discriminating against other people's religious beliefs, even by default. You keep that stuff private, or at least completely separate from government.

They aren't supposed to be encouraging any religion, they're supposed to be neutral. Their allowing her article to be publicly read could be considered as their endorsing her religious beliefs, or even just encouraging them. For instance, if a question is posed in class, is the teacher is supposed to explain to them how god would look after their souls and take them to heaven? While probably sending the godless vietnamese to hell, yes? So what are those from other religions (like buddhist vietnamese) supposed to make of that? Many of those would consider even going to heaven as blasphemy, yes? Even atheists would find it insulting (you're rewarding me for being good?? I don't need any rewards, thank you very much! What nonsense, so I should have been evil just because there was no reward?). They should accept her claims over theirs?

If the school's okay endorsing her religious beliefs, then I suppose they might as well be fine with creationism in class, seeing as it's a religious fact. You guys have no problem with that I suppose, being xtians yes? Then you should not have a problem with valhalla as heaven, giant turtles holding the earth up, zeus smiting a few heathens with lightning, uncle moh cutting the moon in half, sharia, local jazzmen and their various practices or even the necessity of human sacrifices to the gods (mayan style, even if a dead religion, it still was a religion) etc etc, being taught as fact or endorsed in schools, yes? Or is xtianity the only religion, what of the others?

So no, no religion is schools or any government agency. Keep religious beliefs private, or at least out of government.

My condolences to you @frank if you read this. Ignore the rest of this post though, it's callous heathen stuff


Back to anony, so, without god, this:

Mr_Anony: If all there is to us are our physical bodies and death is just a mere ceasing to exist, then what does it matter how we live our lives if at the end we all die anyway, what would it matter if we believe in God or not or if we were serial killers and mass murderers? If in the end we all just die, why do good to anyone? Why not just live for our own pleasure alone? Why sacrifice for others and make anyone else's life better if both you and the person you are helping will eventually die in the end?

hahahahahahaha

And yes, it is a bit of a non response. It has little to do with the matter at hand, which has to do with the presence of evil and general xtian selfishness when dealing with situations like these, ie, tragedies of the nature of the op. All you've said is trust in god, have more blind faith, etc. No answers. More sophistry...