₦airaland Forum

iv4fb: @wiegraf, idleness has made u thus

And that has something to do with your bigotry, how? I suggest working on that rather than trying to play the victim or appearing mature. Unless of course you enjoy blind hate

Seriously @logic might be right, you might be part of the cancer

O.M.E:
lol..you are so foolish to believe the tricks of the devil

To expatiate, note this mo.ronic bigot @anony. He is provided evidence to the contrary of his unverified nonsense, but still thinks it's a 'trick of the devil'. He does so because 'god', against reason, says so. He bases his conclusions on god's opinions. Does this qualify as his being objective? You base your 'good' or 'bad' on simply what god says as well, yet you call that objective?

Note I am not saying morality is objective, I am saying that supposing morality were objective, you base your morality on the opinions of someone else, not the evidence or factors, yet you look someone in the eye and still call that objective.

Supposing you measure an object's length and it's 5 cm, objectively so, then someone walks in and says it's 58.9 and you blindly accept the answer, would you call your behavior objective?

It can be labeled objective, but only in the sense that you are accepting his (very) subjective opinion as an objective fact. That doesn't mean your conclusion was objective, it was the big boss' subjective opinion. This is simple.

If there were a method big boss used to arrive at his conclusion, surely he could share it, yes? Or are his ways mysterious? If he says well, he used his own ruler, which he arbitrarily set, in which case there would be no way to determine the scale without his presence, do you still call that objective? Despite the fact that it is built around his opinion?


Does every little thing have to be pointed out to you? Here comes the LALALA. Before you incessantly start begging the question I'll ask you, what god? But even with a god, and morality depended solely on the god's opinion, not an objective methodology, how can you call that objective?

iv4fb: @wiegraf, now I see why you're an atheist-! If atheism is not a religion then its what? Classify it for indeed I have no idea what it is. I didn't even talk abt persecutions here but abt extremists like you. My friend, you can call me whatever you like-thats absolutely what I think atheists are made up of. serve your self if you like. Atheism has contributed negatively to Nigeria-at least, look what you've turned to. If indeed you guys have no doctrine, no belief/unbelief, then its absolutely nothing. The 'no god', 'equality', 'evolution' and the likes are what?

If indeed I was wrong, shouldn't u have corrected me since you're one rather than fighting for it? You're a bigger bigot- now go ahead and spew more trash, that's atheism-hateism!

What's an atheism-hateism ? I'm actually being nice, I'm usually a little less gentle against folly. like yours. The worst kind, ignorant but holier than thou. Caught with your pants down but what do you say? You slipped, fell and landed on her? What, it's her fault? The sexy little thing wasn't wearing her scarf, she then tempted you with her hair. I see. You'd have made a good village eediot back in the day.

It's all been said already anyways, @logic handled it well. English won't mask your bigotry. You don't even have a valid excuse (other than religion) for your blind hate of homosexuals. You even seem to admire the scientists that fought for rights, then blindly seek to persecute others. I should add hypocrite to the list of your offenses maybe

Anyways, think about this, would you call theism a religion?

Kudos
I hope you expose your ignorance on other threads, the sillier ones. I'd have a lot more fun that way

iv4fb: @wiegr.., I aint saying atheist contributed nothing- I only said I don't know what they contributed. again, I actually itemized the evils of christianity/islam and atheism-i didn't capitalize on atheism. Sometimes its not fair to take an isolated point and blow it out of proportion. Fyi, we're talking about the ills and not the good here-all three do have their positive sides too. But you're more interested in anything that has to do with Atheism, u pick it up and there u go. This aint a debate and even if it is-why're you only interested on one point? Is that where all your knowledge is? You may as well educate me on that.

Btw, why is it that atheist are always ready to slay anybody that say jack abt their beliefs/lack of beliefs? I think that's another form of extremism to watch out for. I actually raised issues about 3 religious race-the atheist are already ready to fight to defend theirs. @logicboy, the muslims and christians aint calling u names each time you attack their faith, correct me if I'm wrong but I'm begining to think that both religions are more tolerant than Atheism

You made baseless accusations, admit you don't have anything to back them up, then still try to play the victim? What sort of retard are you good ser? Did I say you claimed we contributed nothing? You implied we worsened the situation, and just now admitted you're ignorant of the actual situation. You also imply we would do it because of some sort of doctrine.... Atheism is not a religion, there's no such thing as atheist doctrine to debate. Are there bad atheists? Unquestionably. Do they do it because of atheism? How? This is just a fraction of your foolishness, but I'll excuse some of it.

Then you play the persecution card... The less than 1 % atheist population, with virually no power in this society, is persecuting you?

And you may not have noticed that like I say, I was initially just playing around. I persist now because of your reply (and boredom). You brought this on yourself, I'm sure you're still the victim though.

You're either ignorant, or a bigot.

Logicboy03: 5) Arab VS Jewish delusion;
I wont write much on this as I plan to write another thread on the islamic Arab delusion. The main point here is that while christianity is a Jewish religion, many christians disassociate themselves from modern or classical jews by retaining their identity while being christian.

It is not uncommon for you to see muslims claiming that the best civilization for mankind was the Arab empire or caliphates during or immediately after Muhammed.

This maybe requires examintion, like you say. It highlights how islam seeks to control just about every aspect of its adherents lives, down to how many times a day they are allowed to piss. Since arab culture is deeply ingrained in islam, converted populations lose most of their culture and adopt far too much of the arab's. Worse, arab culture from 1400 yrs ago. They don't just take the good bits and leave out the bad, which is what usually happens in these situations, they adopt wholescale the bad and the (little) good. This mostly because they are not allowed to question anything, at all. Just be good drones.

Arabs now think themselves some sort of mastah race, and they should.

Xtianity was somewhat like that, but the last 200 yrs or so they've evolved. We still see threads where questions like "what kind of trousers am i allowed to wear?", etc, are asked. I would think one should be able to handle such mundane problems without consulting a 2000 year old text. But meh, usually over harmless stuff, not anyone's biz

iv4fb: @wiegraf, I am no judge or Jury to say homosexuality is wrong but by the laws of the land(religious unwritten and NASS laws) it is. With regards freedom not been free. Most scientists suffered heavy persecution from 'the church', they suffered chains and prisons so ppl lyk u could be free in ur beliefs/unbeliefs.

Christianity/islam/atheism have all contributed their quota to the problems of Nigeria. The church creates billionnaires and jet owners,taking from the poor and giving to the wealthy, the mosque produced 'bombers'-killing innocent ppl, atheism-what have they even contributed? Some did promote homosexuality-(logicboy don't tell me of japan and other atheist countries-it might b working for them, here its a problem)

First off, atheism is not a religion, but I'll indulge you slightly and sometimes assume atheists follow some sort of doctrine (icky), just for now

Where did I mention I have an issue with your stance on homosexuality? I actually do to be fair, but I didn't highlight it for certain reasons. I'll leave that asides just for now. What I am focusing on is you claiming atheists have something to indoctrinate. Where? Do you know what atheism is? Also, 'freewill is not free'

http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

Note how 50% of the people who grew up in homes unaffiliated to any religion, secular homes (not necessarily atheist, just unaffiliated), go on to associate themselves with a religion. Of course, for those from homes affiliated with religion, the story is very different. So, if half the people from unaffiliated homes go on to become affiliated, explain how secular households are indoctrinating children. By giving them choice? What doctrine do atheists have to indoctrinate anyways? Baseless accusation
(note, unaffiliated actually make the most gain, in fact their population doubles by adulthood. That's because quite a few from all the other groups switch to become unaffiliated but they're usually just a small fraction of their original group. it seems catholics make the most net loss, I'm not sure)


The first bold, wth? They suffered so we could be free? So you accept we have to suffer to acquire rights if we don't have them, yes? Just like atheists now believe in rights for all (including homosexuals) and are willing to suffer for it, via ostracization or whatever. You do realize that atheists are not saying...whatever it is that you are saying.. but are saying basic rights should be a must for everybody, regardless of sex, creed, gods, etc? Are you praising those scientists then criticizing atheists for doing the exact same thing? This is all assuming we actually had the power to effect change, and were following some sort of doctrine, of course. Baseless accusation

The second bold, how many atheists do you know? How much power do we open atheists wield. But regardless, you're not accusing us of any crime there, you're simply saying we've done nothing. You then conflate us with groups that are actively worsening the situation, in your case by mentioning fleecing. So, we've actively caused more harm to the situation, how? By doing nothing with our non-existent power? Baseless accusation (it's not even an accusation, but meh)

Baseless accusations, extreme prejudice... that means bigot

Possibilities if you permit multiverse, possible explanations for the constants, etc, via evoltion

But we must emphasize that even if we accept the speculative premise of the multiverse, the conclusion that this compromises our predictive power is far from airtight. The reason, simply put, is that if we unleash our imaginations and allow ourselves to contemplate a multiverse, we should also unleash our theoretical musings and contemplate ways in which the apparent randomness of the multiverse can be tamed. For one relatively conservative musing, we can imagine that—were the multiverse picture true— we would be able to extend our ultimate theory to its full sprawling expanse, and that our "extended ultimate theory" might tell us precisely why and how the values of the fundamental parameters are sprinkled across the constituent universes.

A more radical musing comes from a proposal of Lee Smolin of Penn State University, who, inspired by the similarity between conditions at the big bang and at the centers of black holes—each being characterized by a colossal density of crushed matter—has suggested that every black hole is the seed for a new universe that erupts into existence through a big bang-like explosion, but is forever hidden from our view by the black hole's event horizon. Beyond proposing another mechanism for generating a multiverse, Smolin has injected a new element—a cosmic version of genetic mutation—that does an end run around the scientific limitations associated with the anthropic principle. Imagine, he suggests, that when a universe sprouts from the core of a black hole, its physical attributes, such as particle masses and force strengths, are close, but not identical, to those of its parent universe. Since black holes arise from extinguished stars, and star formation depends upon the precise values of the particle masses and force strengths, the fecundity of any given universe—the number of black hole progeny it can produce—depends sensitively on these parameters. Small variations in the parameters of the progeny universes will therefore lead to some that are even more optimized for black hole production than their parent universe, and have an even greater number of offspring universes of their own. After many "generations," the descendants of universes optimized for producing black holes will thus be so numerous that they will overwhelm the population of the multiverse. And so, rather than invoking the anthropic principle, Smolin's suggestion provides a dynamic mechanism that, on average, drives the parameters of each next-generation universe ever closer to particular values— those that are optimum for black hole production.

This approach gives another method, even in the context of the multiverse, in which the fundamental matter and force parameters can be explained. If Smolin's theory is right, and if we are a typical member of a mature multiverse (these are big "ifs" and can be debated on many fronts, of course), the parameters of the particles and forces that we measure should be optimized for black hole production. That is, any fiddling with these parameters of our universe should make it harder for black holes to form. Physicists have begun to investigate this prediction; at present there is no consensus on its validity. But even if Smolin's specific proposal turns out to be wrong, it does present yet another shape that the ultimate theory might take. The ultimate theory may, at first sight, appear to lack rigidity. We may find that it can describe a wealth of universes, most of which have no relevance to the one we inhabit. And moreover, we can imagine that this wealth of universes may be physically realized, leading to a multiverse— something that, at first sight, forever limits our predictive power. In fact, however, this discussion illustrates that an ultimate explanation can yet be achieved, so long as we grasp not only the ultimate laws but also their implications for cosmological evolution on an unexpectedly grand scale.

Ze Big B.ang

In a little more detail, the modern theory of cosmic origins goes like this. Some 15 billion or so years ago, the universe erupted from an enormously energetic, singular event, which spewed forth all of space and all of matter. (You don't have to search far to locate where the big bang occurred, for it took place where you are now as well as everywhere else; in the beginning, all locations we now see as separate were the same location.) The temperature of the universe a mere 10-43 seconds after the bang, the so-called Planck time, is calculated to have been about 1032 Kelvin, some 10 trillion trillion times hotter than the deep interior of the sun. As time passed, the universe expanded and cooled, and as it did, the initial homogeneous, roiling hot, primordial cosmic plasma began to form eddies and clumps. At about a hundred-thousandth of a second after the bang, things had cooled sufficiently (to about 10 trillion Kelvin—about a million times hotter than the sun's interior) for quarks to clump together in groups of three, forming protons and neutrons. About a hundredth of a second later, conditions were right for the nuclei of some of the lightest elements in the periodic table to start congealing out of the cooling plasma of particles. For the next three minutes, as the simmering universe cooled to about a billion degrees, the predominant nuclei that emerged were those of hydrogen and helium, along with trace amounts of deuterium ("heavy" hydrogen) and lithium. This is known as the period of primordial nucleosynthesis.

Not a whole lot happened for the next few hundred thousand years, other than further expansion and cooling. But then, when the temperature had dropped to a few thousand degrees, wildly streaming electrons slowed down to the point where atomic nuclei, mostly hydrogen and helium, could capture them, forming the first electrically neutral atoms. This was a pivotal moment: from this point forward the universe, by and large, became transparent. Prior to the era of electron capture, the universe was filled with a dense plasma of electrically charged particles—some with positive charges like nuclei and others with negative charges, like electrons. Photons, which interact only with electrically charged objects, were bumped and jostled incessantly by the thick bath of charged particles, traversing hardly any distance before being deflected or absorbed. The charged-particle barrier to the free motion of photons would have made the universe appear almost completely opaque, much like what you may have experienced in a dense morning fog or a blinding, gusty snowstorm. But when negatively charged electrons were brought into orbit around positively charged nuclei, yielding electrically neutral atoms, the charged obstructions disappeared and the dense fog lifted. From that time onward, photons from the big bang have traveled unhindered and the full expanse of the universe gradually came into view.

About a billion years later, with the universe having substantially calmed down from its frenetic beginnings, galaxies, stars, and ultimately planets began to emerge as gravitationally bound clumps of the primordial elements. Today, some 15 billion or so years after the bang, we can marvel at both the magnificence of the cosmos and at our collective ability to have pieced together a reasonable and experimentally testable theory of cosmic origin

Randomness

@inesq, yeah, tl; dr: , but hope you don't misunderstand, there are 2 ways of using it. One to say you frankly didn't read the post, the more popular usage. It is also used by the post's author to indicate he's acknowledge he's made a rather long post that might be in dire need of proofreading/editing, so he's providing a quick summary for those who would rather tl; dr:. I've been using the latter

And even now there's too much to say, but I'm rightfully paying for some procrastination atm

So quickly.. @pastor we could switch consciousness for intelligence, that's still blurry but more satisfactory. I appreciate there are different types of intelligences. To be more concise, maybe I would say sentience + reason = consciousness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

In my words, what I've been calling intelligence would imply being self-aware and capable of reason. And very importantly as far as determining one's goals and purposes are concerned, would be capable of emotion. Without emotion frankly one wouldn't be able to self generate his/her goals, they would have to have been placed there by something else. I know that's flirting with freewill/determinism, so let's just stick with 'consciousness' instead of 'intelligence'. Wiki's description:

"Consciousness is the quality or state of being aware of an external object or something within oneself. It has been defined as: subjectivity, awareness, sentience, the ability to experience or to feel, wakefulness, having a sense of selfhood, and the executive control system of the mind. Despite the difficulty in definition, many philosophers believe that there is a broadly shared underlying intuition about what consciousness is. As Max Velmans and Susan Schneider wrote in The Blackwell Companion to Consciousness: "Anything that we are aware of at a given moment forms part of our consciousness, making conscious experience at once the most familiar and most mysterious aspect of our lives.""


Immanence implies being in everything, we're now heading into pantheism, aren't we?

While another member of this forum has vilified me for having this position (though that might be for other reasons, like my winning personality), there are simply things that must have existed before or simultaneously to any consciousness, or anything else for that matter. Even knowledge for instance, if knowledge didn't exist before our first consciousness, where did it get the knowledge to create knowledge? So simple things, usually abstractions like numbers, must have always existed. Or simply 'being', or 'existing', at the very least they must have simultaneously existed with any 'god'. Putting a wrench into the notion that god created everything, creating must have existed before god! It also puts a dent on god's that are supposedly omnipotent, as it implies there are laws it is subject to (though that should be obvious even without pointing this out, imo)

@inesq I think you are pushing for something similar to the scenario you gave in an earlier post. Where the colors which represented entropy were mixed in a closed system. You think there's some consciousness that can open the box and manipulate this and that bit. So, it won't exactly be a member of our universe but one that has access to it, along with others we cannot reach? It sounds nice, but of course I would shout evidence, and point out that it's needless and only complicates things. Of course I will have to show you how properly, soon enough. It would mostly just be expatiating on what I've already said though, and showing you something about abiogenesis, evolution and odds, which maybe could be applied elsewhere, like the big bang.

And you have to consider what space is expanding into, nothing. It's just expanding... Well, it's complicated, but it has been theorized that our universe could bump into another one. This expanding into 'nothing' is one of the reasons I don't hold the position that 'sameness of energy' is the only form of 'nothingness', or at least different forms of energy could lead to 'nothingness'. Could the nothingness across universes (if they exist) be genuinely nothing? Doubtful. Very. Could they be made of a different kind of energy? Probably. But this is speculation.

Ramble, ramble, ramble

EDIT: I forgot to mention that if you are of the view that this universe did not have a beginning and has been expanding, regardless of how slowly it's been doing that, that would mean that an infinite amount of time has already passed. Therefore an infinite distance would separate the expanding bodies by now, no? (And of course, entropy would have rendered this particular universe useless) . True infinites arguably don't exist physically

And there's more, and really related even if it doesn't seem so. There's not time though.... Some excerpts from Brian Greene's the Elegant Universe...

Logicboy03: 5 minutes or 5 meters are actually meaningless. They are just standards as a human society that we have agreed on. Same thing for many moral issues that are proposed by christainity- they are man made but they claim it is divine. Imagine the maltreatment of gays- this is what christians believe is divine instruction

For lengths or time one could use the planck scales. No such thing with morality, in any way, shape or form. As for meters and minutes, you are right, but he will weasel away with this bone I just gave him

@anony, a straight answer

Are deeds good because god says they are good or because the deeds are intrinsically good, god or no?

obadiah777: I SEE WIEGRAF HAS BEEN DRINKIN THAT CHEAP SHEKPE FOR A WHILE CUZ THIS POST IS OLD AND HE SOUND AS DRUNK AS USUAL

I THINK I WAS SOBER AS I CAN'T REMEMBER MAKING THAT POST

iv4fb: @wiegraf, where lies ur strength? In supporting anarchy without making a point, I guess!

Did you not say atheists indoctrinate children? As well as claim freewill isn't free, whatever that means? Did I not go through the trouble of highlighting them, or did you miss that? So what are you accusing me of? I wasn't even serious sef

Explain how atheists indoctrinate children for starters. Or maybe I should open a thread so you can show us what we mean to indoctrinate...

For your sake op, I hope you, and the people that "like" your post, are trolling.

Let me just add another 'like' for giggles

Sweetnecta: evolution is now a certainty? i thought it is a theory, rather a hypothesis since no proofs but just a mere discussion of phantom concept? heck. what are they teaching them nowadays?

This is better, at least you aren't talking zombie. Even if you're terribly wrong.

It's a theory like this

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

But I'll let someone else handle that as my mad has run out

iv4fb: The church and mosque praises those that destroy the society so long they 'contribute'...the atheist- most of them support homosexuality, indoctrinating our youths in falsehood, they believe in freewill but freedom isn't free, the other religions, they set 'spiritual traps', kill, maim for minor reasons as depicted by Nollywood. Hope sinks in hell with the devil.

@ihe, you were too nice to him sef
Come back here! While I readily agree with the rest of what I quoted here, especially church/mosque part (I do love me some religion bashing) what the heck is the bold supposed to mean?! Come back and explain yourself joor!!

InesQor: For the Universe as we know it today to exist, some asymmetry was necessary. If everything had balanced out perfectly and come out even; matter and antimatter; fields canceling fields; entropy unperturbed we wouldn't have a universe.

But why this perfectly calculated initial imbalance, no matter how small? Could it really have been some random chance?

I still think so, but obviously I cannot be certain. Until a a valid multi-verse theory or something similar is proposed, we can't be too sure. But those numbers might not be so perfect, just like the number of fingers on our hands aren't so perfect. 10 will do but so would 8 or 12. There might be even better configurations as far as creating a universe that is less hostile to life (which might not even be life as we know it) is. And we also know that something can indeed come from 'nothing'. With uncertainty at the core of this madness, it's not so far fetched to imagine one of these collision going big bang. We know nothing about conditions before the big bang though, or even if there's a before, so it's all speculation.

If you propose an intelligence, you'll still come to the problem of how first cause gained intelligence, and a few others. What purpose, its nature, etc. Without intelligence you just have to worry about its nature/properties. It's the simpler, much less complicated solution, and it is supported by the supposed purposelessness, uncertainty/fluctuations and nothing from something. So I would pick it.


edits

InesQor: Oh my bad in using the word "choose", as I had no intention to mean it "willingly decided". I meant, why an increase in entropy for apparently no reason? Without any external disturbance, closed systems will usually maintain their state of entropy, and not spontaneously begin increasing. Entropy is currently increasing in the universe because it exploded and began expanding, doing work in the process. But something influenced that initial disturbance, and this may be termed a purpose (touche, it may have been random though the odds seem so slim).

Ok, so we'll call first cause purpose?
And the bold is important. I'll see if I can make my case for it being random

InesQor: I feel you are wrong in terming the creation as a wasteful process. This is like calling a sculptor a wastrel for "setting free" the figurine whose "essence is trapped in the stone". Once again, we return to purpose. If the purpose was to make a figurine, a fine replica of Alexander the Great with his interesting nose, and the sculptor spent extra time (thus increasing entropy) chiseling away at the nose, and we have more stone chippings than we would have had if an amateur did a shoddy job; can we say the sculptor is a wastrel? No, he achieved purpose. However if the purpose were to use as little stone as possible to make a mere semblance, then the amateur did better and the sculptor wasted resources.

In the case of our universe, I think the sculptor wasted nothing because the constants just seem to fit (maybe this is confirmation bias, I agree).

Yes, of course this all makes sense, but like you say it depends on the purpose. And I cannot think of one that would warrant such waste, so I would generally default to assuming there wasn't one. This would explain why nature is so haphazard and seemingly purposeless in its dealings. And yes, I think the antrophic principle still stands, those numbers simply might not be perfect, they just seem that way to us.

InesQor: There are three schools of thought about the universe's expansion. The first believes the universe began expanding, and will soon reach a point at which it will begin recompressing until its back to a singularity, then the process repeats itself in time (I.e. Our same universe) or in space (another place). The second school of thought believes the universe will keep expanding infinitely. The third believes the rate of expansion is tending towards a critical value such that it will still retain its properties. I am of this third school of thought and this is yet another reason I believe in some initial conditions carefully preset at the universe's onset of expansion.

I'd never heard of the third option, it is interesting. Yes, I'll agree that if it holds it would add more weight to your claim. Even if it does though, does it negate the problem of entropy increasing? That would still be a design flaw

Logicboy03: It is like we are thinking the same thing!


Go to the islamic thread. No thread on evolution or deep philosophical topics. It is bankrupt of intellectual discussion


This is the average thread on the Islam section


Muslim A (The OP); Islam supports the environment (or education or peace or goodness)

Muslim B; Salam, bro! Islam is great

Even the borg from star trek would be impressed by their groupthink.

It's unending circlejercking and brainwashing. That sort of mindless devotion from a smaller religion and it would most definitely classified as a cult.

InesQor: Neither chaos nor order necessarily imply usefulness, I see them like two sides of a coin and both are "useful". Afterall usefulness is subjective and there is no such thing as "useful in all ramifications". Useful for what purpose? Ah, and we're back to that pupose matter again.

The raw energy at the Big Ban'g was useful in its own way. The current state of the Universe is also useful in its own way; I see no sense in comparing the two without deferring to "purpose". Why the universe rather than the nothingness? For what purpose? After all, a closed system may either increase entropy or maintain it. Why did it choose to increase entropy instead?

But there's no indication it willingly chose entropy, it's just something that happened. A being with a purpose wouldn't setup a system as wasteful as this one. I would still say lack of a purpose would explain what we see, rather than a purpose. Unless, of course, you could come up with a reasonable purpose. Which is of course why you opened this thread.

And here we see how we apply occam's razor differently.

Sweetnecta: @wiegraf: here is your ignorance before you break a gasket.

deols asked if the victory of the israelis [jews if it pleases your mind] means the happiness of the christians [nigerian christians if you wish]. reason is, is that the christians believe that they are actually very close to what their bibles want them to do in everything, even when they err because Jesus blood will cover the erring.

but that is not always the case with the muslims. the muslims know when they are far off the perfected path. so they ask for forgiveness, individually and often collectively, one and or some praying for the other or others. if your headache is boko haram since you seem to be narrow minded, it is also my headache and i dont even think i will be affected by their evil deeds, InshaAllah.

oh. learn civility and stop steaming up my glasses. you are behaving like hitler. heck. you crop a name almost from the black forest region.

What the hell were you supposed to be educating me about? I don't care about silly specifics, or my religion is better than yours nonsense. Haven't you grasped that?

Do you understand how silly this thread is? You never add any value and just look to selfishly promote islam. All.the.time. Some xtians will occasionally start threads that deal with matters like the nature of the universe, charity, etc. Issues that are not meant to show their religion is better than yours or proselytize, just genuine concern for the state of the world, no compulsion. Or just for curiosity even, and at times they even don't show up with the whole "I'm better than you because I have an imaginary friend" nonsense. You guys only proselytize and congratulate yourselves for absolutely nothing, like nursery school children bragging about their daddy's car.


Learn to respect other peoples rights before you talk about civility you clout. I see you talking about imposing sharia, 9 year old brides and what not and suddenly you're an expert on civility? Or claiming atheists have a secret agenda to take over the world...

Again, I give it like I see fit, just like you guys censor anyone you don't like (usually for not kissing uncle moh's a$$). I extend the same honor to you; you don't deserve any respect. Or at least your silly nairaland persona doesn't*. Get that through your vapid skull


*don't know what you're like when not here, probably decent enough, so don't take it personally actually. It's mostly your beliefs I have issues with, religion rots the brains, at least in quite a few people.

Related to original question posed about purpose, from entropy:

So which do we have as order, @pastors definition, or the initial state of the universe, the 'sameness' which I will call 'perfect harmony'? Though I can't be sure if it's sameness. I just know entropy, or disorder (in my speak), was lowest at that time.

Do we assume the word 'order' indicates more usefulness than the word 'chaos'?
If so, can we even objectively decide which state is more valuable? Is the raw material, the order (in my speak) at the beginning of the universe, more valuable than the disorder that led to us? While we'd obviously select the later, to alien beings capable of manipulating the raw material but incapable of reversing entropy, which would be more valuable?

That would depend on the objective, yes? But then if there were a conscious objective or purpose behind our creation, it's hard to think of one, particularly for us humans. We are a flawed race in many ways. What sort of purpose could we possibly achieve that could not have been handled more efficiently by an intelligent being? We breed hairless cats in a few hundred years because we have purpose and intelligence. Evolution on the other hand has no purpose or goals to achieve, the results are haphazard. Due to our intelligence, if we survive long enough we will even consciously determine what we evolve to.

I would posit we are less valuable than the order at the beginning of the universe, unless one can provide a valid objective we were designed to achieve which could not have been more easily attained.

Regardless of entropy and my assigning more value to the ordered state, the whole process is so inefficient I find it hard to assume a purpose. When you throw entropy into the mix it becomes worse, because it's a waste of finite material.

Tl: dr; due to amount of inefficiency involved in creation, assuming there's a purpose to all this I would say is unreasonable

begwong: choco-choco/limca are being produced by world class companies-NESTLE/COCA-COLA. dats why dey still exist.

Ooohh, I knew about limca, but I would have sworn choco milo was local just because. Thanks. Shame on 9ja again. Lemme look up gold spot


Edit: gold spot and limca are all from indian coca cola. Okin factory was run by indians

Hehehehehehe

deols: Some deluded individual claiming boss?

And d logicboy's-brain-is-better-than-mine, wiegraf

Smh..

You came back! Another hypocrite using the word deluded. You guys need more creativity. Are you saying logicboy's smarter than me? So? Not sure what this means. Though I'm not sure as to what you've ever done that makes you think you understand what intelligence entails. It's like a person born blind talking about color.

So, do you think you are excused simply because there might be no outward racism in islam, you remarkably selfish and shortsighted sheep?

But.. But, they really were gross, especially that round abomination. The other was just too hard, a block of hard sugar, no finesse...

Shame on 9ja sha, we can't maintain even a biscuit factory

Oh, I saw choco milo recently I think, and limca is still alive

diehard: @Wiegraf and Kay17, your arguments have left the relms of reasonings into delusions. There is no need to say anything more. Mr Anony must really be patience to answer these nonsense.

I was wondering where your cluelessness ran off to. You, who has a special friend in the sky, thinks me delusional...


Back up your claims if you don't want look like an imbecil.e, even by the standards of sheeple. Rather than pretending you've achieved something valuable, hurling some inane excuses, then running off. You may be a ripe candidate for this, but I'm not sure you'll even understand it

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

So, you claim I'm delusional, show me how. If you can't, stfu and maybe work on your reasoning/comprehension problems.

This is not the first time you're being asked btw. Just about everyone on this thread has asked you to explain yourself, you've failed every time. At best, you've memorized the periodic table (poorly) but are completely clueless as to how atoms work.


Edit: you even insult @kay, who's always decent, unlike me. Couldn't you have figured out that he at least is civil, so your accusations are both completely baseless and unjustifiably insulting? Your brain just took the easy option and lumped us together. Or maybe that's the only option it's capable of discerning. With me you could at least use the excuse that I'm a d1ck, so you were just replying in kind. You're a genuine eediot...

F00028: @logicboy, wiegraf

yawn!..

hey logic, if you ever grow real kahunas we may continue the discussion. but leave the sidekick at home.

You seem to still misunderstand, there's no topic to discuss here, it's open and shut except to brainwashed sheeple. Of course because of limited comprehension issues. But pls, run along.

U dey try @logic. How u put up with this lot?

Logicboy03: I am not going to answer your question. Let me put you in on a secret. Anony asked the same question when cornered about slavery in the bible.


Infact your dubious and insulting question, has been asked many times. It is the tactics of religious people to lash out when they are cornered with flaws in their holy books. They then turn the question to "why are you atheists complaining about slavery, racism etc in the bible/quran?....what morality do you have to say it is wrong?"



The fact that you followed the same path as a dubious apologetic like Anony should shame you a bit.


Why would a honest person ask why slavery is wrong? Are you too foolish to even not realise that we hate slavery for the same reasons?

He read the anony threads, I doubt he could come up anything reasonable on his own, even something that weak. He thinks anony won that debate by shouting lalalalalalala

F00028: you have a very exaggerated estimation of your nuisance value. you don't bother me at all.

word of advice my insecure, dysfunctional atheist friend: when you try to meet your needs of validation by insulting others, it wont always work because in the real world you meet people who:
a- dont care what you think, and
b- will insult you right back.

...and what is it with atheist and se.x.ual metaphors

ps: i meant come out of the closet as christians not as ho.mo.sexuals

You do have a point. Your population is usually too stoopid/brainwashed, it takes a lot of work to get through to y'all. It's the reason I think you should be nice to @logic. Take vedaxx for instance, a goat in human skin that's been brainwashed. There's not much that can be done about that. Or you guys, only interested in 'my religion is better than yours' threads. What was that mor.onic thread you opened last time, where xtians were supposed to thank you oh great master thief?

If op had a brain on her she could have opened a thread about the effects of the 'us vs them' mentality, present in most religions, even secular ones. As it stands she thinks there's nothing wrong with hers () and so she should come over to gloat and look down on the xtians, let alone atheists. Something strictly monitored in your section no less. The levels of hypocrisy you usually display are reserved for nollywood, etc

You guys, frankly, are a disgrace. If aliens showed up for instance, we'd make sure to keep you locked in your caves so you don't embarrass the rest of humanity

cyrexx: i just realised that you are the dumbest psychopathic fool with severe comprehension disabilities if the only thing you can see about my post is the word consent.

lol, delayed reaction. It's understandable because well, where's the logic?

F00028: either criticising christianity is your exclusive preserve or you two should come out

I spend a lot of time criticizing religion, not xtianity. You'll rarely find me in xtian only threads. Only in those addressed to atheists or those dealing with religion in general, not xtianity. You guys packed up to your caves a while back probably because you enjoy sleeping on goat skins. I bother you bunch because you're particularly hypocritical, and when talking about religion, that says a lot. Look at this silly thread for instance, it's a d1ck swinging contest more or else. And you guys have shown with something like 2 inches are thumping your chests proudly. It's ridiculous

And your puny, bigoted brain is mildly amusing. Is that supposed to be an insult? Has my manhood now been questioned for all time? Would you feel threatened by such an assumption I wonder? Hmmm

edits

InesQor: "Truth is not objective", you say, but once again remember to specify a domain. "Objective" means based on observable phenomena, and who are we to decide that physically observable phenomena entail the complete picture? We can't know for sure.

Trying to cut it down to maybe to this.

As for evidence, it's all about the method I guess, science simply doesn't have time for unfounded assumptions. Religious assumptions are constantly begging the question, among other things. Why so and so? Because god. But you've not even proven god exists. Reasonable assumptions would always be entertained. Big bang was championed by a priest, iirc. He didn't have support from say einstein at first, but after looking at the evidence he gave it his full support.

Going back to why I think science should always take precedence, and I'm sure you've heard this before.

While we can't decide that the physical entails the complete picture, due the unfalsifiable nature of the claim, we cannot just accept pure speculation just because. If there's no objective method to verify claims, then Pikkiwokki really is real. As are Thor and FSM. You can't prove me wrong. So it's obviously now a case of 'because I say so'.

When people are led down this path, ridiculousness ensues as anything goes. You now have people harming others for the silliest of unfounded reasons. True, it can provide people with a lot of comfort, but it is undeniably harmful as well. So of course, in anyone's private life he could believe in whatever he wishes to. But once it involves another, basing your actions around unverifiable claims, actions which could harm the other party, borders on being criminal.

I don't want you voting? Why? Because you're a woman, and my unverifiable beliefs state you are not my equal, therefore you don't have a say in what I do. etc etc. Even for benign situations, material evidence should take precedence. You can't go around basing your actions which deal with others 'because I say so'.

So if I had a pet for instance, that I adored and even aided in keeping me healthy. Say with emotional support at the very least or even around my farm. If this pet kept on harming my neighbors, potentially fatally, would I be justified in still keeping it? Religion isn't even alive, unlike my poor pet. Its just a group of beliefs. Of course I understand your beliefs are much more valuable to you than a pet, but to people who don't share your beliefs, they very well could be of much less valuable. So forcing them to bend to your will over 'because I say so', well...