₦airaland Forum

Deep Sight: Philosophical equations, yes.

I'm talking about scientists. A scientist who believes immaterial was first cause is very well justified in saying NOTHING was first cause. As you say yourself here with the bolded

Deep Sight: And o, I doubt that there is any scientist who would deny that thoughts exist. I also doubt that there is any scientist who can ascribe the properties of matter to thoughts (has weight and occupies space)

There is the issue of what thoughts consist of, and I do think them physically based, as simply; computations. But I'm not making a case for that now, I'm making a case for your dreaded 'something from nothing'. Immaterial = nothing as far as the physical is concerned..

Deep Sight: There was evolution. But it is illogical and improbable to suggest that it occurred by chance random events. Chance and random matter could not and would not contrive conscious beings.

Indeed, by the principles of evolution, unicellular organisms would not ever have evolved into statistically less successful multicellular creatures.

Not to speak about brains.

I obviously disagree.

I think the low odds are the reason we've not encountered alien life yet (yes, we've not visited the stars or other habitable planets, but we're yet to even come across stuff like radio waves from other species, etc). They are also the reason why despite the (probably) billions of species that have been, we're the only ones we know of that have acquired our sort of consciousness. In other words, the paucity of life gives weight to the case for low odds.

And of course matter MUST interact, entropy must occur. Matter must work, all around us, all the time. So inevitably, so long as life is conceptually possible, it MUST occur (well, at least, very likely, depending on size, and this universe is pretty BIG. In an infinite universe though it MUST occur eventually)..

Mr Troll: they were useful to our ancestors but are no longer useful now. Therefore it is proof that evolution took place, abi?


Now Mr Wiegraf, what do you think my OP is talking about?

hmmm

Mr Troll: Then here comes the atheists...they usually point to what they call 'accidents of nature' to show that in fact what we see around us are just results of random accidents over a looooooong period of time because heck! there are some quite 'USELESS' parts of the body for example which have no purpose and therefore, voila! Proof of evolution!

Which HAD a purpose but are obviously useless now, therefore one of the effects of evolution. This is a natural explanation for their ubiquity.

Not saying 'don't know, therefore; Evolution (or god, etc)'
Saying 'Do know. Because of evolution'

Again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Explains why their presence, how they occurred, and indeed what their purpose is, via explaining why they exist. Do you understand?

Mr Troll: What the heck!!!? How's this position different from the 'GOD OF THE GAPS' position?

Above..

Mr Troll: It isn't if you look at it closely because man, both positions are arguments from ignorance

Really?

Mr Troll: The one says, what caused the big bang? You don't know? Voila! Its God!

Rather than 'I don't know', make something up. Illogical as it may be and completely untestable, probably even featuring supernatural elements that have never been or even be tested or confirmed, that contradict natural observations and common sense, then saying it did it? Yes, argument from ignorance.

Don't know, therefore 'GOD', etc = argument from ignorance

Mr Troll: The other says, why are there numerous seemingly surplus galaxies and why is the universe so big if we are all alone and are the purpose of all creation? You don't know? Voila! Evolution!!!

Again, just as we know why vestigials exist through nature, we do know why the universe is gargantuan. You already state it; because there is NO PURPOSE. At the very least, it's because we are not the purpose. So, again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Nothing being made up. Hope that's clear now? If you can come up with a reasonable purpose and the evidence to back it up, please do so. I hope it's not because GOD!! wants to watch big brother earth?

And just how in whargarbl does lots of galaxies = "Voila! Evolution!!!"? Evolution is responsible for the birth of stars?

Uyi Iredia: I'll take you seriously when you stop doing that. You're welcome.

Why, oh why? Oh, please do take me seriously... I've already told you the fate of the universe rides on that.... Please..

Mr Troll: ... because eh... Evolution? Yeks!
See the OP. Read it again...

wiegraf: they were useful to an ancestor

You're beginning to veer into foolishness..

Deep Sight: As such, your thoughts being immaterial, qualify as nothing.

I see no point in arguing against thoughts that qualify as nothing.

What does this have to do with anything? If you were a scientist that believed in the 'immaterial', would you put 'immaterial' into your equations? By it's very definition, something that can NOT be measured. Can you explain to me how that is science?

You have problems with 'something from nothing' but think it logical to put 'immaterial' into equations?!

Mr Troll: they KNOW or they THEORIZE it?
Just like how they 'knew' the appendix was useless and now...?

They KNOW

And the appendix is mostly useless. It is useful to herbivores, not necessary to omnivores.

And all these other organs, I suppose they were just intelligently designed? It just happens to be a coincidence that whales and snakes have remnants of limbs, we have remnants of our days as herbivores via the appendix and of course, tails, etc. Even chickens that have lost the ability to fly, have wings because?

Mr Troll: Then here comes the atheists...they usually point to what they call 'accidents of nature' to show that in fact what we see around us are just results of random accidents over a looooooong period of time because heck! there are some quite 'USELESS' parts of the body for example which have no purpose and therefore, voila! Proof of evolution!

That's not what atheists, or rather, scientists say, troll. In case you missed it, scientists KNOW why most vestigials are there, they were useful to an ancestor....

Uyi Iredia: Oh no sir ! Don't patronize me. Patronize your spouse - if you have one.

Yes sir, this bolded as well. Please just wait a bit, I'll stop doing that as well. Thank you

Uyi Iredia: Of course you would mr whargarbl, I will expect nothing less. Now demonstrate how it is stüpid.

Yes boss. Please give me a minute, I'll get around to indulging you, I promise

Uyi Iredia: And where in that post did I state there was a soul you dunce. I have, to your pleasure_a stupid pleasure at that, said that intelligence is contingent on the brain.

Stopped here. Bravo. If this is what you got from that, I can but marvel at your impressive stoopidity.

Deep Sight: There is no theist or Deist that subscribes to that idea. All theists everywhere hold God as eternal in the past. It is rather some atheist scientists that advance somethingness from nothingness - a most unscientific, not to speak of illogical piece of nonsense.

Really? So a deist scientist, putting 2 and 2 together, would consider an immaterial first cause as SOMETHING he can add into his equations? Do you understand what I'm telling you here?

On another note, your eternal god, how did it achieve a 'first' anything? Via some scientific and logical means I suppose.

Deep Sight: So long as your thoughts can be immaterial, they can also be nothing, for the vast majority of intents and purposes.

That IS my point. For some concerned with the physical and natural, and that includes many scientists, the abstract qualifies as NOTHING.

Deep Sight: No.

Needless to say, suit yourself, as we aren't dealing with absolutes here. But it's a perfectly reasonable stance

Uyi Iredia: Dead things and non-living things also exist and counter this ill-thought out notion you've stated. One wonders why you fail to see that the things that express intelligence eg nuerons, blood, cortexes etc. themselves lack intelligence.

The bolded is a contender for the most foolish thing I've read yet in these forums. Perhaps you think cells should have souls as well.

Uyi Iredia: Refer me to the thread where I said that. Except for a certain thread, I have consistently maintained that animals reason but to a lesser extent than man.

....
That IS my point... What sort of reading comprehension do you posses? And you know what threads I speak of. For instance, this

Uyi Iredia: Animals, yes they do have intelligence but it appears there are limits to what they can grasp. I wonder if a chimpanzee would pick up interest, in say, classical music or calculus.

So you agree they reason, but you reason that their ability was acquired via supernatural means? Was god manipulating all these species, everything with a brain, everything that can compute? Or is it just ours that is magical? They cannot make the leap to sentience so long as the requirements are met, why? Because you say so?

Uyi Iredia: I'll take you seriously on vestigial organs when you remove all of 'em. Knock out your tonsils too since they were once called vesitigial. Remove your badly designed eye and prostate gland while you are at it. One wonders the foolish purpose Mr Evolution had, to create all living things from goo. mr whargarbl should know.

This is also a contender for most asinine point encountered.

Vestigial organs don't exist (just like bosons!), in us or other species.

For instance, no trace of limbs in whales, snakes. Flightless birds do indeed have wings purposely built in just for show. There's no trace of a tailbone in us humans as well. Everything there has a purpose. Myriad highly trained scientists draw the same conclusions, myriad examples of useless organs, evolutionary baggage. Yet you somehow think all that wrong and assert all those organs are intelligently designed to achieve a purpose...

Let's even ignore issues like the faulty designs of the human reproductive system, which has led to the death of billions of women during child birth through history. Or even my eyes you speak of, perfectly designed to use prescription lenses as well. Or the presence of other oddities, like lungs in lungfish.

At the very least, your picture ought to be in dictionaries next to the word LALALALA

Uyi Iredia: Like your patently delusional insistence that intelligence ultimately evolved from matter. Since you'll ignore, ignore the following:

Mr mutation always has novel traits to produce, we must forget that he is random since, somehow, he pulls off even more complex traits. Of course, Mr mutation hardly destroys his precious lifeforms. Of course, mr whargarbl will talk about dinosaurs and other extinct species but did random mutation destroy them. Mr mutation always knows what to do. From protobionts build cyano-bacteria, from that we get to a fish, then mammals (some of which Mr mutation decides to make fins for). Mr mutation is mere errors in the DNA yet he had the foresight to bless lifeforms with DNA error-correction mechanisms. We must not forget Mother Natural Selection. Ever so kind, ever so sure she preserves the fit enough and kicks out the less fit. Except of course when she decides to display her sexuality and kinship to all. Mother Selection knows for instance to preserve the burgeoning legs of a fish without necessary brain regions, nerves, muscles and bones because she knows Mr mutations will gradually and randomly bring them up. She strongly believes half a wing is of help and should be kept till Mr mutations (who is sometimes slow or fast) brings up new wings. Mama Selection and Mr Mutation hallowed by thy name ! Do accept the thanksgiving of mr whargarbl and his ilk ! And evolve more fortitude for them to defeat history-deniers who dare desecrate the sacred work of Evolution ! In Darwin's name they pray. Amen.

Yet you claim to understand how evolution works.....

Uyi Iredia: Thanks for telling me what I know. Now . . . ask why I said it.

Please do tell why you think I'll indulge this foolish request? I'm genuinely curious....

edits

Uyi Iredia: You will, like mr whargarbl, insist that intelligence must be
expressed through matter, you then state that the evolved brain and its activities constitute intelligence. You are BOUND by your position to continually ignore the chasm between neural activities involving electrons and the meaning (the consciousness and intelligence). Put in other words, you must continually forget that the activities in your brain don't answer the question of intelligence, they beg the question, for the simple fact that each component lacks intelligence and are constrained in their actions despite (not because of) physical forces (eg tornadoes, sunlight, ocean waves, thunder, methane, ammonia, hydrothermal vents,
phospholipids etc involve physical forces have no compulsion
to make a brain yet they perforce via MUTATION and
SELECTION evolved one).

You might have a case here.

I concur that computers can make complex computations with just a single transistor. Indeed, you aren't creating a false dillema by asserting consciousness needs immaterial pixie dust before it can be attained, despite having no basis, NOT AT ALL, for making that statement. Computers require immaterial matter before they can compute. Elephants and chimps require souls before they can pass the mirror test, which indicates some level of self-awareness.

I also agree that as consciousness is not fully understood yet by the scientific community, you are not using that as an excuse to invoke god of the gaps or partaking in a great deal of [url=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance]arguing from ignorance[/url].

There's also no element of wishful thinking involved via ignoring obvious FACTS, such as the link between brain and consciousness, evolution, simple physical laws, etc.

And of course, no special pleading as well. GOD!! can be intelligent and immaterial, just like that. Complex and immaterial. Everything else requires GOD!! to manipulate it before it can become intelligent. GOD!!!? of course, is exempt.


So, for instance, conclusions based on the simplest application of common sense (when you consider what damage to the brain does to one's personality) or discoveries such as this

extremetech: MIT researchers have shown, for the first time ever, that memories are stored in specific brain cells. By triggering a small cluster of neurons, the researchers were able to force the subject to recall a specific memory. By removing these neurons, the subject would lose that memory.

As you can imagine, the trick here is activating individual neurons, which are incredibly small and not really the kind of thing you can attach electrodes to. To do this, the researchers used optogenetics, a bleeding edge sphere of science that involves the genetic manipulation of cells so that they’re sensitive to light. These modified cells are then triggered using lasers; you drill a hole through the subject’s skull and point the laser at a small cluster of neurons.

Now, just to temper your excitement, we should note that MIT’s subjects in this case are mice — but it’s very, very likely that the human brain functions in the same way. To perform this experiment, though, MIT had to breed genetically engineered mice with optogenetic neurons — and we’re a long, long way off breeding humans with optogenetic brains.

In the experiment, MIT gave mice an electric shock to create a fear memory in the hippocampus region of the brain (pictured above) — and then later, using laser light, activated the neurons where the memory was stored. The mice “quickly entered a defensive, immobile crouch,” strongly suggesting the fear memory was being recalled.

The main significance here is that we finally have proof that memories (engrams, in neuropsychology speak) are physical rather than conceptual. We now know that, as in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, specific memories could be erased. It also gives us further insight into degenerative diseases and psychiatric disorders, which are mostly caused by the (faulty) interaction of neurons. “The more we know about the moving pieces that make up our brains,” says Steve Ramirez, co-author of the paper. “The better equipped we are to figure out what happens when brain pieces break down.”

Bear in mind, too, that this research follows on from MIT’s discovery last year of Npas4, the gene that controls the formation of memories; without Npas4, you cannot remember anything. MIT has successfully bred mice without the Npas4 gene.

The question now, though, is how memories are actually encoded — can we programmatically create new memories and thus learn entire subjects by inserting a laser into our brain? We know that a cluster of neurons firing can trigger the memory of your first kiss — but why? How can 100 (or 100,000) neurons, firing in a specific order, conjure up a beautifully detailed image of an elephant? We’ve already worked out how images are encoded by the optic nerve, so hopefully MIT isn’t too far away from finding out.

Read more at MIT or check out the research paper at Nature

are totally useless. They don't feature santa. Yes, you aren't making $hit up while screaming LALALALALA just to make yourself feel warm and fuzzy inside.

For the last bolded, they shouldn't waste their time trying to figure it out (and potentially drastically improving millions of lives afflicted with degenerative conditions) as you have all the answers. Consciousness is not based on the physical, it's based on GOD!!!! Something wrong with your mind? Use spirit-power. It's intelligent.


And 'perforce'? What do you mean, that you're the center of the universe? That nature was actively seeking to create you? That it had a purpose, yes?

Really....

Uyi Iredia: I have dealt with your objections on the 'used to respect deists' thread. You can bring them up here instead of pretending they weren't replied.

You call this $hit a reply? What is wrong with you?

Uyi Iredia: Yet nobody will deny the existence of 'nothing' or 'immaterial'. Now propose that it ('nothing') is conscious and intelligent and a certain lot, using their evolution-given consciousness and intelligence, will disagree. I'll advise mr faff-a-bout to also note that matter (in itself) lacks both consciousness and intelligence.

I've already addressed all this, or do you need diagrams to get a better handle on things? Why, oh why, the completely needless and BASELESS proposition? YOU yourself (and all life armed with brains, for starters) are matter with intelligence, therefore your very existence makes this asinine assertion FALSE...

You yourself have stated that animals are capable of reason. In fact, I was the one that had to point out that it's at best rudimentary for most species, you probably would have run off with it otherwise. So, what in the world is the problem? Are they, or are they not intelligent as well? If so, then is your god designing all those species as well? Doing this while planting vestigial organs, common ancestry, etc, along the way? To what foolish purpose? Mysteriousnesssess?

Creationist nonsense.. You intelligence needs a creator, but the ultimate intelligence does not... You'll excuse me if I ignore any future vacuous, desperate for god assertions such as this one.

And who says nobody denies the existence of nothing? Quite a few people do.


Btw, everything you do is half-a$$ed, yet you call one 'flaff-a-bout'?

You're xtian, you're not one. You're deist, you're not one. Intelligence needs a material base to manifest, intelligence does not need a material base to manifest. And now this;

Uyi Iredia: For now, I will. You are on my blacklist.

Am I, or am I not in your feted blacklist? Your 'for now' lasted what, 72 hrs? Could you stick to one position please? This isn't a decision that will impact the fate of the universe (contrary to your opinion), I'm simply either in or out of the blacklist (preferably in pls).

Deep Sight: It is in fact atheist scientists, who have argued (via virtual particles and radioactive decay) that something may pop out of nothing. An alarmingly iidiotic position, of course.

As myopic as usual, I see. And it's some atheist scientists subscribe to that idea, and I can't see why theist/deist scientists can't as well. Isn't your god immaterial, timeless, skselaeefaesce-ness? So long as he can be 'immaterial', he can be 'nothing' for the vast majority of intents and purposes. Or are you admitting a material base is necessary?

lagerwhenindoubt: ISLAM is not special nor should it be given the kind of authority it gets these days (as with all religions). However, you cannot seriously make this generalization of all Muslims? How do I put this in a better perspective... ISLAM is an authoritarian religion, there is no such thing as democracy and it is upon this FACT that the extremism of ISLAM is bred (delivered by the mythical 0.99% who make all the 200% negativity you see around ISLAM)

I know several reasoning, tolerant and peace-loving Muslims that respond to criticism of ISLAM and her Prophet it in a non-violent manner. Yes it is important to their personal lives but they do not seek to enforce it on everyone by violent means. Unfortunately these types are referred to as "moderates" and are at risk of losing their "deen" thus are not TRUE Muslims. I do not deny that the religion is one of Fear, Intimidation and Crude Violence as shown throughout its short history, but to say all Muslims are Terrorists is frankly untrue

And exactly who here has asserted the last bolded? I've looked through and can't find anyone. I certainly haven't done so. I interact with quite a few muslims, almost daily, who even by the holiest western standards are EXCEPTIONAL people (and they rather regularly put me to shame, btw), that does not justify their belief system. I know exceptional xtians as well, for instance. Even if I were in a society filled with NAZIs of the WW2 flavor, I'd still know many exceptionally good people in that very group as well. They'd at least be saints in every regard but turn a blind eye or pretend the patent 'evil' in their ranks doesn't exist, tacitly supporting the 'extremists'. Same thing with 'moderate' muslims, especially those that do not speak out (and that is the norm)

So, again, my point still stands. Muslims are people too, just like the rest of us (regardless of their senseless interminable special pleading, perhaps they think of themselves as possessing of jedi mind tricks? I can't see why else they expect others to accept their blatant nonsense). Their doctrine certainly does NOT discourage fundamentalism, they're behavior alone confirms this (if you must, read their literature). As a result it's far to easy for subscribers of it to justify violence, more so than the average belief system. And these people do NOT believe they're being evil, just as the very vast majority of us humans do not think ourselves evil in our actions.

You really don't think yourself evil? Cool, but ask the guy about to blow both you and himself up what he thinks. He'll tell you you're plenty evil you bloody kaffir. Why? He'll very likely point to the koran or islamic lore. Even if he doesn't do that directly, islamic traditions certainly don't help matters. I mean, for starters, again, they're perfect, good, role model of a leader was a (rather immoral by today's standards) WARLORD.

So, as far they're concerned, they are perfectly 'good' and justified in their actions. 'Just a few' is not a good enough excuse for the islamic community to bandy about, not at all. All the other groups have these 'just a few' in their ranks, but they do much better at controlling them than muslims do. Why do muslims get a free pass? If muslims genuinely want to be taken seriously they need to step up their game drastically. As it stands now, you could excuse one for not believing islam and multiculturalism can coexist.

lagerwhenindoubt: It takes a certain (deep) level of detachment from humanity and morals not to recognize that killing children, women and folks for no reason other than the voice of some unseen god telling you to do so. acting on the promise of heaven or virgins goes beyond a system of indoctrination and brain-washing. the perpetrators also have an evil desire that needs fulfillment, Revenge, Anger, Frustration, severe complexes etc

Actually, I would say it takes an abyssal level of detachment from humanity to not recognize that all, absolutely ALL groups/humans have 'evil' desires for revenge, anger, frustration, severe complexes, etc. Do you somehow think muslims special?

What do you think jews or various indigenous groups, among many others, around the world should be doing then, considering their history? What about us poor repressed negros collectively? Do you know how many populations muslims themselves have repressed and indeed continue to do so? Perhaps you'd like to move to saudi and open your own church. Church's are good business you know, think about it. Or perhaps you'd simply want to make your own cartoon criticizing a rape endorsing, 9 year old bride marriage consumating arab warlord and his very suspect belief structure by most of today's standards. You can do this for just about any person historically, you can also criticize any DEMOCRATIC belief system in the world as you see fit as well. So, why do muslims get a free pass? Or aren't they human as well?

Uyi Iredia: Going by the inanities of a certain despicable mr whargarbl I wouldn't be shocked if someone glossed over the 3 (even the four) facts proposed and harped on the statement that intelligence requires materials to manifest. In any case for me, God's existence is a given.

Whatever happened to your heralded ignore list?

Uyi Iredia: It is a I'm as rocksure of that in my new stance as I was when a Christian.

And when you were an xtian, you were a hundred percent correct as well.


Kayi. Folly. At least your use of the word 'despicable' was funny.

Heh heh, the atheist in your op is strange. Like you note, I doubt most of us atheists operate that way. His reasoning is more the way I see religious operating.

Anyways, some would say you have it backwards. For instance;

tobechi20: .

They believe that reality is whatever they want it to be; whatever they believe is the case, they also want to be the case. It seems odd, personally. Regardless, there are plenty of things Iwantto be the case that I don't believearethe case

Isn't this what faith based religions are built on?

faith
/fāTH/
-Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
-Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.


Absolute belief regardless of the evidence? It's inherently irrational, hence the never ending battles between skeptics and religious.

Random...

I see a lot of people contorting the word 'faith', using it somewhat disingenuously.

Let's say I show you black, you then insist it's white. I ask you how did you determine that? You say; "GOD!!". Note, your belief in god is built around blind faith, ie faith that is not backed up by evidence. Very different from saying 'I have faith in the sun shining tomorrow'. There's plenty good evidence supporting the notion of the sun shining tomorrow. Indeed, regardless of what I believe in, the sun will shine tomorrow. Billions around the world will verify, objective scientific instruments will acknowledge the event, etc etc.

Very not so with gods, supernatural, etc. Regardless of what the evidence is, you still have FAITH. That is what religion is. So some would say these people you speak of in your quote above are simply being religious. In fact, they would say you are the one doing it wrong.

lagerwhenindoubt: They are bad people who use terror and religion as a means to an end, they could well have been Mormons, Cattle rearers, OPC, Muslims.

You call these people bad, why? As far as they are concerned, they are saints. In fact, many even martyrs as well, promised a reward of 72 vir.gins for their exceptionally good deeds. Why? Because they were following Islamic doctrine.

That's the salient difference here. Most of these groups you mention, afaik, do not have doctrine which places such a negative emphasis on kaffirs, or make it so simple to justify violence, etc etc.

NL member: You sure have a lot of names in these parts. I just learnt you are also a non-deserving-of-crumbs dog


Lol
You guys are a riot.

You misunderstand. Those are terms of endearment

Uyi Iredia: I'll reply the question via PM. Messrs Faff-a-bout and NoProphecy are dogs deserving of crumbs.

Oh no, pls, don't mind me. By all means, continue irradiating Uyiredian logic. It seems more toxic than even nuclear fallout. What's next?

1 + 1 = 2

therefore, '+' is a number?

NL member: So you're now mr whargabl
That'll teach you for dismissing people's religious arguments by calling them whargabl

And this particular genius isn't even religious, just astronomically confused

NL member: Anyway everything is fine at my end alhamdulilah

Glad to hear.... Take am softly abeg..

Kay 17: ^^
Is a foetus a person in Nigeria?

Also note that 187 is subject to Roe vs Wade

They probably should try getting passports for these fetuses.

NL member: Lmfao
wiegraf you crazy man.
you need help

DOHOHOHO...

Oga, 2 days. How you dey?

Uyi Iredia: Good for you, mr whargarbl. Just make sure it doesn't go flaccid from abuse.




But of course, you need a cünt to help you out with that problem. Penile varicose vein thingz.



So says mr Wiefty-Grafty.



Ironic. Cuz the question applies to pea-brain who had to reveal his bütt when I posted a reply.



Santa must have failed little wiegraf a lot. No problem, mr wiegraf has a new toy, Dr Seuss' tale of wiegraf's faffs.



Next time I write jizz, visualize a lady mouthing on your doo-doo and comfort yourself the thought that a roughly similar mouth action made jazz.




Oh that ! I'll check it out. For someone who complains I'm interested you exhibit a lot of knowledge - or should I say curiosity.



Don't worry. Lots of gradual mutation and purposeless non-random natural selection should do the trick.

Jizz, bjs, c.unts, doo-doo, etc.. Che, brah, did someone steal your crayons? Don't cry, it will be alright.. Perhaps you'd like some milk and cabin?

Even after poring through this post with a microscope, I failed to find anything close to resembling a point. Perhaps you think (if you're capable of normal thought, ie) otherwise, but I assure you, not so. You simply just affirm my assertions with these posts. Asides from being a desperate, self-centered, confused mess, your mind also appears to be sexist, vulgar, homophobic etc. Simply put; rather sad.

So again, my special friend;
His santa-given brain provided the tools which led him to his decision.

Problem, where? Though I have to leave soon..

Uyi Iredia: So says sir Jizz-a-lot !

My pipi works, so I do do that, captain obvious. Not necessarily with my hand though (an activity I suspect you've got good experience with considering your morbid obsession with it), which I assume is what you imply. As I think your small, foolish, santa-given mind probably thinks that an insult.

But more pertinently, good ser, what does that have to do with anything?

His santa-given brain provided the tools which led him to his decision.

Is this statement wrong, my special friend? Did you even attempt addressing it? Instead, your mind wandered off to ji.zzing (again)? If you're really that interested in jiz.z (ugh) then please here, google is your friend, but you really should do some of your research yourself. Santa, for instance, isn't going to do it for you.

Uyi Iredia: Spoken like a true citizen of the evolutionary 'never-never' land. Are you willing to articulate to 'aDarwinists' like myself what makes the theory so compelling.

His santa-designed brain

Logicboy03: ...

You should look around before calling people douche bags. It doesn't say the page is infected, it says a link on that page leads to a site that is infected. Most people who know squat about computers (and even some pros) could inadvertently link to a site with bad rep, it obviously is not intentional.

Chrome sef na wa, too sensitive. They should warn you when you visit the site, not when one links to it (which is what everyone else does). That's silly. Granted, there are a few virus that could be activated from just looking at a file, but they are rare and (I think) mostly dealt with.

The antivirus thing is akin to xtians and hells. Just as head sheeple do, certain companies babble interminably about the quadrillion viruses out there, keeping the public scared so they can make a profit. In defence of technologists there are problems, at times even serious ones, so their 'hell' is not imaginary. It is usually not as bad as they make it out to be though.

Mr Troll: Wiegraf: *long epistle*…*says the same thing several times without realizing it* Nothing.

So you have been paying attention..good. That is CORRECT!