₦airaland Forum

fellis: What is the big deal about Schindler's list anyway?
Maybe I should get the mkv format.

The end of the film they spend 20 mins trying to make you cry, past the point where it's no longer acceptable as manly tears. That asides, film was cool, and it turns the spotlight on various heroes due to spielbergs celebrity. Oskar schindler was serious boss. Actually, him and his likes don't get enough praise

@thread, I should get to work.

OLAADEGBU: And who is talking about Romney?

Mazaje. Assuming you've discussed your views with mazaje before, or he is just aware of your positions from reading your other anti-obama threads, from his post I could infer you support romney, no? If I'm wrong though then I stand corrected.

What does that have to do with anything? It highlights the hypocrisy of attacking the more zealous of obama's supporters for blasphemy while ignoring the fact that the beliefs of the alternative you support himself, not even those of his supporters as is the case with obama, are considered blasphemy to your religion.

Blasphemy is a rather sorry victimless crime anyways, but that's another topic

And I've not come across any sensible american on faux news before, though I could be wrong

Bélla3: c'mon dnt you knw that where Islam is concerned rights and kaffirs can burn in hell?

Just like when I'm told I'll never visit the stars in my awesome spaceship, I like to believe this statement isn't true

Whatever one's masters decrees, we shall blindly follow. $deity knows we can't think for ourselves

Haters gonna hate

And I'm not even a fan of obama for other reasons, but romney? Lol

TroGunn: I believe the Genesis biblical account, which tallies with the evidence so far. That different "kinds" of life forms - plants, different land animals, sea animals, birds, man were created "male and female" (with ability to reproduce) and they grew their numbers from there - did not evolve one to the other, but appeared relatively suddenly. This does not necessarily go against having variations, adaptability within each "kind"- e.g dogs in different areas or group having different physical characteristics and with new characteristics coming up through mutation or cross breeding, but they remain dogs. I don't believe that big evolution leaps occurred, from reptiles to birds for example happened- each group created differently.

Thanks!

talk2xp: Do not shy away from the matter on ground. Let us tackle this one first. We would get back to that if need be.

Could y'all stop accusing me of whatever's on your minds, it's annoying and I'm fairly childish. I was simply clarifying something with a fact. And I believe there's an even more recent incident with a muslim family as well. But bottom line, where do I say that behavior excuses this one?

Atheist:-D:
Vestigial organ like the appendix. If God made all things to have a purpose then what is the purpose of the appendix?

Evil? What is the purpose of evil?

God? What is Gods purpose? Can God have a purpose?

This one is good...

Apparently all tasks a human can do can be done by a turing complete machine (or something like that). People should listen to us since we speak the language of creation....

LOGIC

am talkin: So confused...read it somewhere that he was beaten to death because he fail to read his Koran

There was a muslim family in the uk that did the same.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/12/05/koran-beaten-murder-ege-sara_n_2245077.html

He was OT raising the kid. It's there in the bible, so I can't see what some xtians are complaining about. He must be brainwashed as well for the sake of his salvation, end times are coming, etc. It's all about love of course, only love would lead someone to beat his child to death.

And don't use the 'OT is not valid anymore' card. It was once valid, why? Regardless, most of you discriminate against homosexuals because of the OT. So you can just arbitrarily pick and choose when to be an a$$?

For starters, special relativity
If that's too easy add entropy, for now...


edit: btw, you do know that because of the way the book is written it can be interpreted to mean just about anything, just like say nostradamus' 'prophecies'. But yeah, this is fun

Sweetnecta: do you know that i am also a grand father? lol. see. i guess i am mom's age.

anyways.

anthony wiener is not a senator. a 'resigned' congressman from new york married to a lady who was working with clinton when she was a senator.

please know the facts before posting any fact.

every society wishes to protect its own members within the rule of the society. i guess she is one of those who slipped.

even people from south south where you come from will have a feat when this yoruba come for their women. she better be the best because i take the best of the litter. lol.

good night. i do not want you to be turning and tossing all night long.

Was it you who was telling me I was infringing on your rights?

So, would you support laws banning muslim women from marrying non-muslims?
Do you prohibit your daughters from having relationships with kaffirs?

TroGunn: Fair points.

True, Religious studies could be ok if presented as general information about major religions.

Same should be done with evolution. What irks me a bit is how the knowledge gaps in evolution is not highlighted. The theories should be presented. The scietific facts should be taught - mutation, adaptability,etc.

That these facts have not irrefutably proven macro evolution should be taught. That the fossils generally show species appearing and disappearing suddenly and mostly unchanged over time should be taught. The fantastic time-reliant conjecture on origin of life or speciation based on little evidential backing should be presented as it really is - conjecture. No bias.

As u rightly pointed out, as adults we'll dig further and find our way.

I'm sort of cool with this. I don't think it conjecture, I think it more of shall we say a mathematical result. In that when you stir all this things together the inevitable result after the millions of years would be different species. But yes, there are gaps that could use some work on, and they should be highlighted. Hmmmm, how effective theories work in general should be well explained, as this isn't the only situation where we don't have all the answers yet. Crucially, critical thinking, but I'm not even sure if it's possible to teach that

On another note, I'm just curious. Do you reject evolution outrightly, or do you think it is being guided? If guided, in what manner, spiritually? Or do you think ID landed alien style and did some modifications then took off? etc. Note I'm asking for your opinion, I won't to attack it etc.

TroGunn: While I support outing religious instructions from compulsory part of basic schooling curriculum, it might be fair to do same for evolution. It creates a bias toward evolution as is.

I don't agree, of course

For a science classroom, the aim is to support facts, or the scientific method. Evolution is built around facts, mutations, natural selection etc etc are all established facts. If you add time into the mix, evolution is inevitable. ID, on the other hand, seems like pure speculation to me, there's no smoking gun there.

You let in speculation, then anything goes. For instance, one might as well say zeus was an alien, and he flew down here and did the tinkering. He took a trip back home but he'll be back and due to time dilation he'll have aged just a few years. These are more plausible than judeo-xtian god as ID actually, as theoretically all this is possible. But despite quite a few people having produced all sorts of arguments, albeit tenuous, to support the case ancient aliens visited us, it's far from a fact. It certainly shouldn't be in a classroom. The same for any ID actually.

Anyways, we should just present the facts, and one of those facts is that there are still gaps in our knowledge. We should stress we do not know some things, science is still working on them, and in fact maybe they could someday settle the issue conclusively. So how the students fill in the blanks should be left to them


edit: ah yeah, I agree on religious studies. I'll add I'd rather it be religious studies, not crs or irs. They should study various religions and the basics of how they work, spirituality, the lowest common denominators etc. As adults they can then go on to make their own informed decisions about faith, spirituality, religion, etc

What was this thread about sef?

TroGunn: My faith in the believe in a Creator has surely grown as a result.

Good for you. Though I'm weary of faith, but meh.
I don't think the picture you paint is accurate, but meh again.
I hope you're one capable of being able to say separate church from state, that's all I ask. From what I can tell it would seem so, or at least you're not standard sheeple and have actually given it some thought. But regardless, as long as you're not infringing on anyone's rights, that's your prerogative.
Kudos

musKeeto: As wiegraf suggested earlier, there should be categories. I have a lot more regulars I'd like to nominate..

I suppose even nl has bureaucracy. And maybe time/effort is not worth it as well.

We could spin off our own version on some other thread, so we could circlejerck be fairer. For instance, an fc barcelona version.
You'd be xavi, the metronome dictating the pace, not necessarily in the spotlight but ever present dictating the pace with your bumps (passing) and skills (wit).
Logicboy would be fabregas, ready for action at any time. Can have the occasional bad day but is usually back in your face immediately and doing brilliantly. Never ending energy levels, always willing to take on a challenge positively
Kay would be busqets, without the diving an peek-a-boo of course. Effectively and relentlessly dealing with threats without fuss and any unnecessary shine. Unsung hero (of sorts), not looking to become a hero either ways.
Serialink a dependable striker, hard at work and exemplary attitude others could only hope to emulate. For now, I'll settle for alexis sanchez, without the shenanigans (some unnecessary diving) as well
Plaet probably david villa, excellent marksman, all business
Obadiah is obviously victor valdez, goalkeepers are notoriously eccentric. Think oliver kahn, jehns lehmahn, joe hart etc. Considering their job, it's understandable they tend to be a little crazy. Obadiah's task of guiding the flock
and the constant reincarnating (among other things) explains a lot.
@reyg, you could be puyol I think. Direct and to the point, with a crazy glint in the eye and a singular purpose


Frosbel is the opposition, as always. To every single conceivable team. Actually, even to his own teammates
Anony opposition manager, of the calibre of say harry redknap. While ostensibly looking decent, when you look more closely you'll realize he's actually won very little and usually leaves the clubs he's managed in dire situations. They are almost always relegated immediately and in financial trouble , see portsmouth and west ham

Of course I'm both iniesta and messi

Edits, and also, like @bella's post below, I'd like to nominate everyone

TroGunn: And so because we can't explain the greater intelligence, it must have happened as a result of random, purposeless process(es), just like our Ipad4. Great argument there.

This is all roughly correct except for the ipad part. And not 'must', but much more likely.

edit: oh yes, I nearly forget, there are also other reasons it likely isn't a greater intelligence as well. I've mentioned a few maybe but you choose to ignore them.

TroGunn: I'm quite sane. You, sir, are obviously without purpose. The Ipad4 was built over time actually and with "simple' building blocks. Because of that, surely it must have evolved. And assuming I don't know the purpose of the Ipad4 and because Ipad1, Ipad2 and Ipad3 are now "extinct" - surely it must have evolved. No way is a more complex intelligent designer involved.

You still sound mad. But you're maybe not cognizant of the way I use the word 'mad' in situations like this. Mad = angry. I am not purposeless because I am conscious and intelligent, I can create a purpose for myself. Don't need a book of fairy tales with questionable morals (as far as natural evil is concerned) to help me with that.

The ipad wasn't built overtime, it was designed over time. Bits assembled at some plant, probably overnight. Logistics of getting the bits together could take time, true.

Anyways, dna was not designed, at all. Put together without any purpose or intelligence, else the many imperfections in life could surely been have addressed, no? It also wouldn't have taken millions or billions of years for an intelligent super being to put together, yes? Puny humans have mapped dna in how many years now? If you come across something that looks to have been put together aimlessly that could be explained by natural means, then it probably was put together aimlessly by nature over millenia. Simple. God? Where? Who created this god? Don't ignore simple to complex, like I've already indicated. You do know how ockhams razor works as well I hope. And if details aren't clear yet, remember, effective theories. They will be more accurate with time. Don't invoke 'god of the gaps' or argue from ignorance. It was once thought the earth was on top of a giant turtle god. In fact, story is when someone was asked what's under the turtle, she replied "it's turtles all the way down". This is basically what you are now doing.

You don't seem to have much more to add. You are now just shouting LALALA. I suppose your next question would be to ask me if I am descended from monkeys? And they say atheists are arrogant, because we accept this unimaginably large universe was not put together just for us. Yet theists are not arrogant, despite most believing they have a special friend in the sky reading their mind who built this vast universe just for them. Maybe he waited 14 billion years so he could watch big brother? It's baffling....

TroGunn: It all points to a Maker with much greater intelligence.

Begged another question. And again, what made the much greater intelligence? Another much greater intelligence or you shouting LALALALALA.

TroGunn: I walk in the desert and come across an Ipad2 right there in the middle of the desert. Within the Ipad4 is an OS, dual core processors, 512Mb of memory chips, cameras, etc - obviously an intelligent device. I conclude that the Ipad4 must have somehow evolved from the sand ( in fact sand is contains silicon!).

Because a belief that the Ipad4 was made by someone, that I can't see or prove in an experiment, is "unscientific". If someone made it, where's the person? Why is the Ipad4 in the desert? Who gave birth to the person? I can't say - so I conclude the person doesn't exist. Believing that he exists would be an "argument from ignorance".

And yes, the "anthrofunny" principle - the sand must be there so that the Ipad4 can evolve. I have to invoke it because i can't explain existence of a designer. As someone said "it tends to be invoked by theorists whenever they do not have a good enough theory to explain the observed facts."

In any case, I badmouth the Ipad4 for not supporting flash - evidence of poor design. More proof that it evolved from sand without a designer.

I log on to NL and tell my story and badmouth anyone who dare says the Ipad4 is the product of an intelligent designer.

(Note: the DNA is so complex that none of man's inventions comes close to it in design efficiency - it stores staggering amount of information about each organism, gives code that maintains the organism, reads itself, copies itself faultlessly, without leaving the nucleus of a cell ensures that it's instructions are carried out to the letter. [b] And yet all the DNA information that defines the behavior, hair colour, eye colour, everything about all 7 billion humans alive would not fill a spoon /b] And yet, according to some people, it was not designed by someone, just like that our hypothetical Ipad4).

You sound mad.

Ignoring the rest of my post which highlights many other imperfections and focusing on the argument from design, there is no ipad in nature. The ipad is built overnight, with a clear purpose in mind, manipulating materials that are not readily available in nature. Not so with dna, it was created haphazardly over millions, or billions of years. Tempered by the elements without purpose or intelligence, thus resulting in many failures. Over 99% of all species that have ever been are extinct.

The galaxy is filled with many such complex constructs similar to dna. In fact, even atoms, once thought of as being simple, are not so simple at all once you consider quarks. Let's not even assume string theory (which yes, isn't a proper theory) is valid, if it were the amount of complexity in every single atom has sky rocketed, exponentially. But all these things can be explained simply. It's simple to complex, till you get very, very complex in some situations. Again, sometimes over billions of years.

For examples of simple to complex, if you haven't come across fractals and 'the game of life', google them.


And on other notes, you mention only humans as if this stupendously big and now complex universe were built just for us. The anthropic principle clearly still stands, the universe wasn't built to meet your needs, you were inadvertently built to meet the universes needs. In a purposeless and random manner no less. Your post is still an argument from ignorance. And all apple products are $hit

Logicboy03:

Yes, THE CHOSEN ONE is in excellent form today. On virtually every thread he's visited he's spread THE WORD with good wit.

Reyginus: Chose your words well because I'm watching. Kay is watching too.

LEtS alL HAs A brAWl...

GyyYYAaaARRRrrr

This is in no way conclusive evidence for the existence of a god though. It is tainted particularly by the antrophic principle (if you've not come across it google it) and arguments from ignorance.

TroGunn: Why? Because the evidence supports it. The masterful design in the universe, of natural laws and constants and of living organisms provides overwhelming evidence supporting an intelligent Designer more than random sponteneity.

And thanks to science, we learn more and more about our amzing universe. In fact, the more we peer, the more orderliness, wisdom and evidence of design we see.

Antrophic principle.

Even on this planet only a fraction of the land mass is available to most life, including us, the sometimes alleged magnum opus. Not to talk of this star system, galaxy or universe. Hundreds of billions of stars in hundreds of billions of galaxies, some claiming built just for us. How mind staggeringly wasteful to all life in general. Terrible design flaws in most species. If indeed we were the goal, 14 billion years to come up with a rather uncharitable sentient species brimming with hubris.

Our scientists have consciousness and intelligence, observe what they've accomplished in the last 400 years when they combine these traits with purposes. They are doing much better, as far caring for us and hopefully all life (if we mature) than nature is.

The evidence overwhelmingly points to nature not having have a goal, it just is. That would explains the chaos and randomness. There's little 'order' there, and what did show up as 'order' (I assume, you label anything that is beneficial to our sort of life as order, yes?) just happened by chance. There are a lot of things that could be improved on, like homo sapiens. How do you know there are no much better configurations of the constants to support life as we know it by the way? Or better forms of life than carbon based even? Wouldn't religious heaven qualify as one such universe for that matter? You cannot assume this is the optimal setting for whatever purpose you're pushing.

And yes, what is this purpose you think an ID had, and could you show that this universe has the best possible configuration to go about achieving it? If you can't, you're arguing from ignorance and making a needless assumption. And again, antrophic principle

TroGunn: For now, there are two main options - either Something made it happen or Someone did. If the odds favour Someone making it happen, why would I believe it's Something, just because believing is Someone is deemed "unscientifc"?

True. But the odds don't support ID

TroGunn: Has it been irrefutablely proven that Someone is not required? Nope.

True

TroGunn: At best, this is what has been proven so far as it relates to Evolution ( I tend to use this term to lump all associated theories and "facts" relating to non-God explanation for origin of universe (Big B.ang), origing of life (Abiogenesis) and diversity in life (bio-Evolution):

Big B.ang: Universe is expanding, so must have started from a singularity. This does not disprove God. It might even be regarded as proof of need for a Starter (God).

True. Focus on might. But if you claim your starter god was conscious and intelligent, you arrive at the problem of how. Simple to complex is the default in nature and the logical way, like I've already stated on this thread. It's a needless and complicated assumption

TroGunn: Origin of Life: Amino acids ( building blocks of RNA and proteins) can be synthesized from other molecules. This does not disprove God. The most "basic' or "simple" lifeform is so so complex - definitely more than throwing in molecules together is required to make them come alive. If/when man successfully creates a living, even if non-replicating cell, then the theory of random origin of life will be thrown out because it will take painstaking effort and design to achieve that feat - it sure won't be random.

Very sketchy for now, true. The tentative premise of low odds though could help explain shared ancestry. Though that could be more a result of the odds of single cell organisms jumping to multicell being fairly low as well. Also abiogenesis need not all have taken place at once, it might have progressed like evolution.
Regardless, I do not know != god did it. That's arguing from ignorance

TroGunn: Diversity of Life:
1) Fossils: Over 94% of fossils found show little or no changes is species over time. Remaining % are arranged to support evolution, but are inconclusive - could be unknown extinct species and not link showing evolution from one to another species. Why should I accept an argument based on 6% of available evidence? Fossils overall show quick appearance and disappearance of species within a short time - not the expected slow changes as evolution would have us believe.

No animal is a different species than its parent, or grand parent, or even great grand parent. If the details are fuzzy, that doesn't invalidate evolution either ways, just means details are hazy for now. I've explained this via effective theories already.
Regardless, argument from ignorance
(Btw, a single fossil located in the wrong region would invalidate evolution, it's never happened.)

TroGunn: 2) Mutation/Natural Selection: At best, what has been observed or expreiments (artificial mutation) prove that species can adapt to their environment, within boundaries. No evidence is provided that supports one "kind" of life changing to another. Does not disprove God creating different "kinds" of life forms.

Microevolution is well documented, so I can't see the problem here. Evolution requires inordinate amounts of time and maybe geographic restrictions. Breeders with a purpose have managed hairless dogs from wolves in a few thousands years. Think of what could be achieved by geographic restrictions and millions of years, even by the haphazard nature

TroGunn: 3) Same building block: Yes all living things have cells with proteins, RNA and DNA. This does not disprove God. May even be taken as evidence of a Common Designer.

True. But if you support this does this mean you support evolution, which you've already argued against? Or do you mean god was focused on one species at one point, then went around later altering myriad organisms to form different species, why? Not to mention riddling said species with imperfections? Why didn't it just make various species rather than introducing the dangerous shared ancestry? This is just one of the many design choices an ID would have to explain.

TroGunn: Those who take the non-God option are free to do so, just because they can't undertand the God concept, prove him in a experiment or are too proud and too certain of their limited knowledge. Evidence, though, strongly points to His existence.

Mistake being you assume they don't understand. If you're talking about the scientific community, that's unlikely. They do, and are very aware the situation is inconclusive, but clearly points away from the vast majority of IDs. Best one could hope for is a completely detached clock maker, but that would be needless and complicating (for instance, how was it formed?), and clearly AFI. And who do you think more arrogant, the one that tells you it is so just because he says so or one who provides evidence to back up his claims?


edits: you're rice @reyg, needs editing

Sirniyeh: .
Can you pls point out the foolish ones among all?

Dem too plenty, almost everyone here misses the point. There's time for god and there's time for action. Don't mix the two, and don't leave everything to 'god'. Look around you sheeple, if him dey e no concern am. I'll add don't leave everything to his judgment in the afterlife as well. That's not exactly what I'm thinking, but it will have to do for now.

Hope no long term problems for the boy liike a special diet for life?

striktlymi: @wiegraf

Good morning,

I don't think responding to your post is worth it cause it would imply that we will be going around in circles.

The discussion about God's existence did not start with us and surely will not end with us so there is nothing to be angry about. Unless you are the "Hulk" I will advice anger management.

Grab yourself a bear, do whatever makes you happy (as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others) and have a lovely day.

Thank you!

This post is extremely eediotic.

Ah, I remember why I'm usually a pr1ck in these parts.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/asinine

asinine
"1: extremely or utterly foolish"

Many of the posts in this tread are asinine

Sweetnecta: @wiegraf: i am only responding to the bold and not any other, including your website.

is there a limit to freedom of speech before it encroaches upon the privacy and person honor and it become a libelous? will you not be offended if someone make what is called your mama joke around you? how respective is your friend who will falsely malign your beloved mother to your face? will that still be "freedom of speech" to you, when you know that he had lied?

even you are so thick skinned, the rest of the world will not be like you with your thicker than elephant skin. some of us care for what we care for and we love to protect the honor of what makes us "us",

Violence is NEVER the solution, even in the cases where the aim is to slander, talk less of criticism. For speech of any sort, so long as it does not call for violence, it should be allowed. You've been slandered? Fine, take it to court and settle it there, like civilized people do.

The whole point of freedom of speech is 'falsely maligned' is subjective. In the case of faith-based religion, very, very much so. It is doctrine based on faith for crying out loud! Your prophet was blaspheming himself against many. He even went to war ostensible to defend his basic right to practice whatever religion he wanted to, to say what he wanted to about the pagans, jews, xtians etc. You think islamic tenets are not outright slander (not to talk of criticisms) to various other faiths? This is bigger than me, you, or my mother you want to slander. Checking the excesses of doctrine, or anything else for that matter, is one of the main purposes of free speech. You might think it allright to marry off a 9 year so long as she's hit puberty (as you've mentioned a few times), but I don't, and will make that clearly known to you as loudly as I possibly can when I see fit, regardless of what your precious prophet thinks or did. He isn't precious to me, and I think his actions so egregious on so many varied topics I can't believe his morality is even up for discussion. But guess what, I might be wrong, it's now up to you, with your freedom of speech, to challenge me.

That is how it works, it is very simple. You have the right to be offended, moan, bi.tch and challenge me, same as I do. No schizophrenic 13(?) wived 6 year old marrying warlord from the 7th century is exempt, no one or nothing is. It is a basic right, similar to your right to believe in islam or pikiwokki should you choose to see the light.

On another note, the hypocrisy when muslims cry foul is astounding.

http://cifwatch.com/2012/09/23/jewish-reaction-to-thousands-of-antisemitic-arab-cartoons-no-riots-no-injuries-no-deaths/

You genuinely think they are not insulted? Or the claims that moh is shagging mary are not extremely insulting to xtians? Xtianity and judaism are simply more mature than you guys, they realize the world is not created just for them.

edit: heh heh, ok, I read it fully.

Sweetnecta: @wiegraf: so you can not infringe on my right with your poisonous words/speech is what you are saying? you may have no morals and think that all 'your mama' speech is okay. not everyone feel that way. somebody will let you keep their money. but you will get whooped and can really get hurt if you go near 'your mama' joke. even in jest. vp dick cheney got angry and use the "f" expression against Senator Pat Leahy because of what the president termed 'your mama' speech.

you're wailing about freedom of speech, again. We've done this before, here
https://www.nairaland.com/1080953/first-question-ull-ask-muhammad#12653120

Or just see the post below

Sweetnecta: my right you have infringed upon is my
belief. what is more important than belief which you are trying hard to suppress mine? you have the right not to belief what i do believe in. yours is yours and mine is mine. but you do not set the agenda which i must follow, just the same way i dont set yours. what do you say?

I fully agree. But note I am not infringing on your rights. Show me how if you think so. Hope it's not by exercising my free speech again?

Sweetnecta: maybe you need to be talking with your kind since other views are bothersome in your heart. i wanted to use soul. but i tae it that atheist do believe that the man is only body and has no soul which is where spirituality flows through.

Use soul if it fits you. I may get it.

TroGunn: As you do not force your non-belief in an intelligent Creator on others, am sure no one is forcing you to believe in God. As I stated earlier, many chose to believe that an intelligent being must be responsible for intelligent creation, as opposed to believing that it happened by blind chance. Of course, another option is not believing in anything - be it Big B.ang or creationism.

Each of them is a position or choice - a matter of faith. Each party is convinced that the position chosen is the best. Each party have same burden of proof to justify their choice - whether it's creation, evolution or believe in neither. Because rejecting one means substituting it with something else, and yes, believing in nothing is a belief.

A good question is, which position makes the most sense based on the evidence? The evidence being, of course, the observable universe.

And it's not only Christians, for example, that present their position as Fact. Evolutionists do that everyday - presenting their theories on the origin of the universe and life as fact.

About religious practices done to please God, and agreed some of them can be hard to grasp by a rational mind, they are many and varied and best handled per thread basis.

The first bold, you live in 9ja? Hahahahaha. Yeah, but of course in this discussion, obviously no ones forcing anything on another

The second bold is the juicy bit, and we've already addressed that actually. Privately, you can hold onto any choice you wish, a matter of faith if you will. In the public sphere, or lets say morally, holding those positions is wrong. You should focus on the facts, or objectivity, once it's not a private issue anymore. The fact is: we have no evidence to support god(s). That does not require faith. If you choose to believe there is a god, you do that against reason. Anyways, I can see you're making your logical case for god, so I'll leave you to that.

The third bold, what do you mean?

BUZUGEE, YOU DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT YOUR HYPOCRITES? THEY ARE NOT 'REAL' XTIANS... HAVE I HEARD THAT BEFORE? HMMMM

This thread arguably has the most asinine posts I've come across

After all that story.....

striktlymi: Oh you are back! Do you realise, you like taking somethings out of context? When. I said we might get to know when we die, it was said in context and it was an ofshoot of some of the comments you made in the previous post.

What comments?

striktlymi: I don't think I asked you for an explanation. You profered to challenge one of my posts yourself. Check your first post in this thread.

I proffered a challenge to you post, you responded. I responded back. Isn't that how things work? Though I've had to clarify and clarify and clarify...

striktlymi: Why should I be upset over nothing. Everyone has a right to choose their own path. This is one of my fundamental beliefs. People should not be gagged to doing what they don't want to do. If at all, I think your post suggests that you are the one becoming temperamental over nothing. This should be a discourse between friends and really, I see no reason why I should be upset by it.

You can believe what you want of course, but you most certainly cannot claim them scientific just because you say so. I have shown you, several times, how your claims are most definitely unscientific, but you insist on claiming they are. To quote myself much earlier

wiegraf: "God did it" is not science, and has constantly been disproven. You're free to believe what you want to believe, but the path you're going down is definitely not scientific, or the logical thing to assume. If you agree with this then we don't have a problem.

So, again, if you concede they are not scientific we have no problems.

striktlymi: I never asked that you believe me because I said so, may be you got that from someone else. And quite frankly I will not reject the belief of God just because you say so.

You are asking me to believe because you say so if you claim they are scientific. WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?? If you don't have any, then don't claim to know the truth. Do we have to have another 20+ posts of me explaining how the burden of proof works?



edit: btw, you seem worried by my temper. never worry about that. I'm always angry at something, it's normal