₦airaland Forum

striktlymi: The bold is the only thing that is needed...



Empty!!!

Ok!!!!

Don't let me get in the way of your folly, lol

musKeeto: With stryk and ik, you know they choose to believe despite the evidence.

With Image123roll, you know the evidence will never be enough.. One happy Jewish slave..


Ihdinobi would work for Yahweh for free even if Yahweh released him...

With stryk, despite that he'll still involve himself in patently silly arguments, one can only assume he's being disingenuous.

With ihe, that happy slave thing always dazzles. It would be cute except yahweh is a sociopath

Proffdada: Cuz man never evolved otherwise today's man would've grown wings and legs will become vestigial according to Lamark

Thank you good ser. Even if you didn't ask funny questions per say, your answers certainly qualify for this thread

striktlymi: Look who's talking...

Ah, good troll, assuming this refers to my logic, don't get ahead of yourself. I might be many things, including a sometime proud troll, but I don't toss around strawmen.

Say one thing now, retract the next second, make an inane comment. Then repeat. What is wrong with you?

It's like you guys take turns lying, stealing and cheating in your desperate attempts to convince all and sundry that the stark na.ked emperor actually has a designer suit on. This last 2 weeks I think it's been mostly you, ijawkid and ihe. I think kails popped up a few times as well. And the comedy troupe of emusan and profdada. Tbf, it would seem ihe is consistent in his nonsense. (I wouldn't know for sure as I stopped caring a while back, he's very much my man though, unlike his abominable mentor)

Anyways your masters have run off for whatever reason (usually a pummeling) and I can't really say y'all are doing a decent job holding up the fort. Most of said masters were piss poor mind you, but incredibly, they might be better than the current crop

Logicboy03: You might want to rephrase that last sentence.....sounds like you were looking at pe.nises in bathrooms and you saw one so big..........................

You juzzdefedd frrieed my braaims

But I was fairly troubled. I nearly started shouting at him to get out

xx.xx is a hell of a drug(s)

striktlymi: The girl represents your white masters given LB's brain some good washing...

Your descent into full blown troll is rather sad. Grasp, grasp those straws

The picture was funny though

^^
You are more deist, or theist, but I wouldn't call you atheist or agnostic.

I've seen people in bathrooms too, but I had good reason.. Amazing what cocktails can do to the mind..

Proffdada: He created one,then procreation duh?!

Supposing man evolved from 'monkeys', why are there still monkeys around?

PAGAN 9JA:
I have seen those videos. THey actually just tend to rub their genitals or graze them nect to each other as a sign of dominance and aggression. This helps them secure more females by dominating other males. Another info of note is that this behaviour is observed only in closed areas/artificial enclosures where many dolphins are clubbed together and kept in a smaller space, than the open seas. For example, the largest study conducted in Shark Bay was with 120 dolphins kept together. Just imagine all the territorial fights breaking out over that small radius.
Another thing of note is that these are juveniles and this brings us to my 2nd statement of animals confusing their emotions and se.xual priorities. below:




Let me give you an example. A dog once tried to hump my leg.
My leg is just a leg. But he felt perv.erted towards my left leg and kept trying to climb it. His thing was completely erect. Thats how. animals tend to get confused over their s.exual priorities.

There are primarily gay animals, ie, even with members of the opposite sex readily available they'd rather climb a member of their sex. I believe 10% of all goats qualify, as do these birds/etc in this article. Other cases (though note, not all of these are primarily gay)

Regardless, what animals do has little bearing on the homosexuality argument, or should we toss out our books/computers and eat our unhealthy children as well?

inurmind: Agreed, but what solution do you proffer? A reduction of the pain inflicted on the animal to the barest minimum, while we still get our meat ? or a total eradication of all practices in which animals suffer distress and pain?

At the moment the bolded is all we can do. One can always point out that the species we usually eat do not have consciousness (that we can tell of) and will probably be eaten by something else anyways, that's the way of nature. We've already screwed up the ecosystem royally, etc etc.

But we can at least be humane about how we treat them, and indeed in more 'developed' parts of the world measures are put in place to ensure we try to do just that.

Proffdada: Yes! If the earth was billion of yrs old, humans & animals would've drank it all up. We would have no oceans. If humans existed 4 billions of yrs like d Darwinists claim, we would 've ran out of air too.

I concur sir.

What of mud? Don't you think that as God used mud to create us, there shouldn't be any mud around left?

Why insult WWE so? You wicked..

Kay 17: LmAOo!! This is sad! So its your sincere belief that mathematics is what people agree about like languages? Unfortunately that's ignorant.

Mathematical truths are abstracts which are not agreed over nor created by anyone. They are immutable structures which the Universe itself is grew on. All human societies independently from one another, have had elaborate understanding of mathematics.

Information is likewise uncreated, how do you create a triangle eh? If you can create information, then you should be able to add as many sides or angles to a triangle as one wants, and it wld remain a triangle. Unfortunately it doesn't.

You spirit argument is shallow and inconsistent. Naturalism and Materialism do not argue against information, nor immaterial (Reason) or Cognition. It just your misconceived notions on Materialism.

Karl Marx said "I exist therefore I think" which simply places Materialism as the prerequisite foundation for even the immaterial to setup.

We should talk about potential at some point. Though I've not fully formed ideas in my head yet, and I've not read any philosophy on the subject (probably won't, considering me..)

Logicboy03: I'm an atheist and I call myself a humanist (secular humanist). I dont like calling myself a skeptic or unbeliever or rationalist because they all sound like negative people despite the contrary meaning. What do you call yourself? A doubter? A rationalist? A realist? A non-theist? Weak atheist? Irreligious? Spritiual but not religious? Evolutionist?


Furthermore, what should we do? I want to meet other atheists in Nigeria. I met many at the humanist convention, and a hunger for more has been aroused in me. I see that humanist convention as a good starting point, I had new ideas and learnt somethings from other humanists.

What do you think? A Nairaland atheist group on fbook? A bb group? A meeting in one of our houses?


I feel something big coming up!

Atheist. Full blown.

I've always wondered why this section has no IRC room, though it's not really important. Too lazy to set one up myself..

inurmind: First let me make this clear: I was being sarcastic when I said animals do not have rights. I meant they should have rights, we say they do, but we do not treat them like they do. I also want you to understand my case. I am not advocating bestiality, I just want us to consider it. How can we say it is wrong yet we do all these other horrible things to them? You have made a case(albeit incomplete) for that and let me highlight my next point.

Then instead of compounding the problem, ie their lack of rights, we should be trying to fix it, no?

This is a simple two wrongs don't make a right imo. Hypocritical? Yes. But we have to start from somewhere. These changes are generational, as are all issues that usually concern rights.

inurmind: How can we say bestiality(and other cases of paraphilia) is wrong yet we agree to homosexuality?

Homosexuality between two consenting adults clearly has no victims. It's nobody else's business, in any form whatsoever.

inurmind: Again you have put the issue of consent and have not agreed to my own definition of it. Now this is something I will still like to discuss but let me ask my third question: I have seen cases of humans having romantic relationships with objects, and by objects I mean cars, walls, what is your take on that?

How is it anyone else's problem? Clearly no one is having his rights impinged on.

With animals, they're a responsibility. We treat them like $hit, true, but it shouldn't be so. As for the issue of consent, think of one of the reasons we so vehemently condemn pe.dos, even if a kid 'consented' s/he was in a situation that was way over their head. The adult is usually (and rightly so) deemed a predator in these cases, as the adult usually has all the cards, manipulates, etc. Now, animals are even dumber than kids, no?

Btw, this is just my view. I'm not exactly selling something here, but I can see the case for outlawing bestiality as having merit, unlike a lot of the other stuff religious want outlawed for ridiculously foolish reasons.

Emusan: You to leave this atheism and ask God for wisdom. Very simple explanation yet is difficult for you to digest. I won't repeat myself again because 5years baby can understand what I put up there.

But just let me say this, software & DNA code are both information and I have explained why SOFTWARE is called SOFTWARE and DNA code is called SPIRIT above.

Where did I use the word 'consciousness' in my post? Consciousness is an atheist word keep it to yourself.

Brah, please endeavor to limit the retardation.

I have already acknowledged your reasons. You, on the other hand, I hope, have your brain working backwards. Else you're clearly trying to dodge as you avoid a simple question put up there.

So, this simple question; is AI SPIRIT or SOFTWARE? Answer it.

Also, are your SPIRITS conscious or not? If they are not conscious, then how in the hell are they any different from standard software?

Why am I pointing out things to you which you should know as you're the one selling this nonsense?

Emusan: Where do you get your own presupposition atheist site.

That 'brain' thing I mention above.

Emusan: Without being sentimental, take a walk around the street and begin to ask people this question "How the nature came into being"

I'm very sure you will get some response like 1) it happened by chance 2) God created it 3) somebody laid it e.t.c meaning it must surely attach to something, and I have explained individuals claim and what support their claims.

Maybe I should ask them if the moon is one giant loaf of bread as well. The &*^%^ does what other people have to say have do with this? Can you give an answer or not?

And we've all been ignoring this for a good while (just for giggle, I suppose), but what the hell kind of english is the italiced? What are you even trying to say? It makes no sense

Emusan: Information is not about complexity and patterns, INFORMATION is about meaningful code that's why anything outside its(information) four attributes is not regard as an information.

And DNA is not meaningful? You did notice, after I even took time out to point it out, that DNA has fractal-like qualities, yes?

Emusan: Have you read about Intelligent Design? even though they didn't attached it to a creator so there's something intelligence about nature not just patterns.

I've also read about mammy water and harry potter

Emusan: It hurt right?

Yes it did, thank you good ser. I both wept and laughed at the folly on display....

inurmind: Since when did animals have rights? We kill them for fun, we use them for lab tests, we do all these horrible things to them and can still say they have rights? Don't you still consider them victims here, shortening their life span, putting them through so much distress? Don't we even have alternative food sources? Besides, I am talking about zoophilia, something which is more of a relationship(I know, it's also disgusting to me, but it is something we must consider. We cannot term it wrong just because of the eww factor). Here these animals show willingness to engage in the act, they approve of it, it is consensual, so how they are labelled victims is a big mystery to me.

You forget you're an animal? That's almost theist thinking right there. There's nothing special about us other than, of course, consciousness/sentience.

Animals have rights, as the apex predators we can $hit/dictate all over them, but they do more or else. Even within a pack there'll be the alpha, who can do x and y, the betas that can do y and z, etc.

With time, most of the world will be vegetarian or something similar, believe it or not. We're headed that way already, with the posters above already dreading the future. Let's hope technology will provide us something delish as a substitute. Already in the UK, I know of people visiting jails for say abusing their dogs. Actually, even in the US, cock/dog fights could land you in prison, not just fines.

Anyways, take your post

fixed: Since when did slaves have rights? We kill them for fun, we use them for lab tests, we do all these horrible things to them and can still say they have rights? Don't you still consider them victims here, shortening their life span, putting them through so much distress? Don't we even have alternative labour sources? Besides, I am talking about consensual sex here, not ra.pe, something which is more of a relationship(I know, it's also disgusting to me, but it is something we must consider. We cannot term it wrong just because of the eww factor). Here these slaves show willingness to engage in the act, they approve of it, it is consensual, so how they are labelled victims is a big mystery to me.

Note, slaves were considered 'animals' as well.

Now, a slave could at least consciously consent, not so much with most animals. And, even if they could, out of fear or whatever just about any slave would have consented. Replace slave with children sef and you could still make similar arguments. Luckily, we treat our kids with a lot more love and respect, but that is for selfish reasons (spreading our DNA).

There are groups out there trying to get equal rights to the other primates, elephants, any species that seems to be on the verge of sentience actually.

Just because we eat them, that does not mean we should screw them.

Think back to slavery, imagine it were virtually impossible to eradicate, at least some laws to alleviate the suffering of slaves would do some good. Same thing here, eventually we may get around a way to producing painless meat, until then we just have to accept it. In the meantime we should do all we can to limit cruelty.

That's my take now, though I used to be on your side of the fence. My take generally is no victimless crime should be government's, or anyone else's, business. Non at all. A victimless crime would be a crime in which no one's rights are being infringed on, yet the act is still labeled a crime. Animals, in this case, I consider victims.

I don't actually have time, but it seems you're still talking, inexplicably

Emusan: Yes I said it. But why simple english is so difficult for you to understand? Did I use grammar in my post?

Get the clue once again, SOFTWARE is an information generated by intelligent source "human being" is already in your body(mass & energy) all you just need to do is to make it seen by writing it down and it works with physical machine. Because it is human code that has meaning, so they name it SOFTWARE try to check the definition of software and see.

Why are you using 'caustic' words? Again, do we look like imbe.ciles?

What you yourself have been saying is that SOFTWARE and SPIRIT are the same thing, only difference being the source (and perhaps complexity, but that is even arguable). But they are..again...the same.gadamn.thing. Your words.

Are they or are they not made of the same thing, abstractions/concepts/inforwhargarbl? SOFTWARE is SPIRIT too, just like you claim consciousness to be SPIRIT as well, SOFTWARE is just less complex. See? SOFTWARE is like a baby SPIRIT in your parlance. Consciousness is daddy SPIRIT

So again, all abstractions to you are SPIRIT. Or some are and others are not, why? Because you say so? Even if you say that you'll attach the word SPIRIT only to a certain level of sophisticated infowhargarbl, then in theory, one can write software that would be that sophisticated, or, Artificial Intelligence. See? Or would an AI not be software as well? SOFTWARE is SPIRIT.

Considering you have a 'clue' I don't know why I have to point this out.

Emusan: *Note: information can only come from intelligent source/sender like human being and it has been discovered that the most complex and meaningful code has ever come from human.

Where do you get this drivel from? Ah, xtian sites.

Again, so, which intelligence wrote the first information? Which intelligent information was responsible for the first intelligent information?

Emusan: See where you got it wrong, human's DNA is responsible for LIFE and it has also been comfirmed that they carry code billions times bigger than any present code this generation has ever generated. Then ask yourself who wrote those code? So human informations are called software gene (spirit) because they dont know how it came into an existence. Remember all information can be trace back to an intelligent source/sender.

As above, oh great genius. And look up simple things like the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life]game of life[/url] and fractals in nature (btw, do you notice DNA clearly listed there?). There's another thread floating around atm about complexity and patterns in nature evolving.

And please, game of life may require you to initially program it, but that's not the point. The point is to demonstrate how complex can evolve from simple. So, as long as simple, basic ingredients are available and interacting, given the time scales involved and other factors, complexity and patterns must evolve. You do not require an intelligence for anything. Simple can form complex, and indeed does so all around us in nature. Do you have a clue now?

Emusan: It has been answered.

Where? Don't waste my time or try to judge.

Emusan: This's the most logical & intelligent question ever asked on this thread. But here are your answers, the major argument here or anywhere in the world is that nature exist and how it came into and existence? 1) some says it happened by chance, 2) some says a supernatural force responsible for it, 3) and some says a SPIRIT (GOD) exist that cause the causes. Definitely one option must correct. The question now is, how individuals arrive at their final claim? The race begins, number 1) said at a point of sigularity for unknown reason something begins to expand causes our universe. Number 2) said somebody was coming with a chain from above and spread the universe. Number 3) said a SPIRIT (God) spoke and universe was made through His word.
*NOTE: there are many claims about the formation of the universe but I just give these three example.
Another question arise here, what support individual claim?
Again, Number 1) said nature consists of only matters (mass and energy) nothing like SPIRIT. Number 2) said through metaphysics everything was revealed. And Number 3) said the same SPIRIT reveal itself to some peoples through revelations and inspiration and everything was written down. Then we left with no conclusion because can we say individuals were wrong? No! But fact and prove hold the truth.

Now what hold the major fact is "INFORMATION". In 2006, Dr. Werner Gitt an information scientist for both human and machine language propose definition for information with other scientist and reach an agreement to be called Universal Definition of Information, UDI. Then UDI contains four attributes which I have explained. Then anything outside or lack one of these attributes is not regard as INFORMATION. Let me just quote some laws about information but I won't explain it, though they're more than these.
1) Purely materials can't generate information
2) All informations require a sender or must have an intelligent source/sender
3) Informations can't be generate through a statistical processes

One of the matters that made up earth is living thing i.e human being, with latest research it has been discovered that human's cells & DNA carry informations that resemble human code and find its way complied with four attributes of UDI. So for birds to stop flying, it needs a new informations in its DNA, for human to evolve from apelike need a set of information into its DNA e.t.c

Now that human being carried an information in its DNA, let ask ourselves these questions base on the quoted laws above.
*Since human has information in its DNA, who wrote those information? since all information can be trace back to an intelligent source/sender, L2
*How come human has information since information can't be generate from purely matters? L1
*If nature happen by CHANCE, how come human carry information? Since no amount of time and chance that can generate meaningful informations.

[/]Out of the assumption about formation of the universe through my explanation, which one do you think is most likely correct?[/b]

Just type your answer don't quote me.

I will reply the rest tomorrow.

Oh boy na wa... What flavor of whargarbl is this? Keep it short please, time....

alfaman2: What is the cause then?

The force is unknown, hence the word "Dark", but what is proposed isn't supposed to work like standard motion, I thinks.

Gravity is folding, or contracting space. More and more space is being made, more than enough to counter gravity's effects*. So, as space is expanding, you yourself, or matter in spacetime, need not move anywhere. No motion involved, but space around everything, from all sides, is expanding.

So if space stops expanding, you aren't going to just shoot off like with typical motion, like say when a rocket propels a body. You'll just.....stop.

Then again, considering relativity, there's no such thing as a stationary body, but this doesn't invalidate what I'm saying.


*Or
-whatever makes up the fabric of spacetime is expanding
-matter is just contracting
the math for either will work I think (I know the math for the second works out, not sure of the first), but these are unlikely imo, so I'll just ignore them.

The writing style seems okeyxyz-ish, so I'm assuming it's really you

I've told you you'll end up an atheist before, yes? At the very least, you'll end up like @obadiah. Trying to honestly make sense/apply logic to those books usually leads to.... the looney bin. At the very least, it's a lonely path you thread

Wait for your friends to come castigate you, banish you as the heretic you are..

alfaman2: Read my post again and read what I was responding to. I clearly said the law didn't apply.

Yes you do, but for the wrong reasons. My point being even the acceleration isn't the result of a 'push', or standard motion per se

alfaman2: You cannot apply Newton's law of inertia on this for the simple reason that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. For the law to apply, the rate of expansion should have to main constant but evidently, it isn't.

So it is either the law doesn't apply or another yet unknown force is accelerating the expansion of the universe.

Why do you even assume Newton's laws apply to the expansion of space? Space itself is expanding, it is not being moved/pushed.

DE can account for the expansion, in fact, that's the main reason it was proposed. It counters gravity's effects on spacetime, and in fact seems to be growing stronger with time, hence the acceleration.

alfaman2: This response is typical of a staunch big banger. Available evidence is showing a primary flaw of the BB but you chose to invent new phenomena to explain it away. This is the point of my thread.

And like I've said, they are reasonable assumptions.

You've not been able to show why they are not reasonable, again, while looking at context (as shown in the article I posted above). You've not shown why we should just toss it out, at all. BB has its flaws, but it's probably the best we have atm, hence the focus on it. No one's saying there's no chance of it being wrong or that you shouldn't follow other options.

BTW, even if it's ultimately invalidated as a whole, there is very likely is some truth there. Consider Newton's laws, they aren't wrong, but they aren't the full picture either, are they? Yet, for anything other than GPS systems, you're probably not going to use the more accurate/valid GR, are you? NASA didn't even use GR to land on the moon, they used Newton's laws.

Theories do not need to be completely thrown out when newer and more accurate ones are discovered. Theories are not necessarily wrong when newer, more accurate ones are discovered either. Newton never said he knew anything about how specific bits in his theory work, eg at a molecular level. In fact, he went out of his way to state his theory was probably not complete and it probably had problems. Similarly, BB doesn't claim to shed light on various things, like what existed before t=0, and like I've shown, its adherents go out their way to state that. But that does not mean it is wrong (or at least, completely wrong), just like Newton's.

This is common practice even, the concept is called effective thories. And like they say on that page, conceptually, every theory we have atm is effective until a TEO is found, but quite a few have so much data backing them we just accept them as true, and they describe whatever phenomena they are supposed to accurately, even if they do not expose every single detail.

alfaman2: No. The probe did not confirm any BB prediction. It got more precise data about things already observed via WMAP.

And you call me a pedant? Whether Plank or WMAP, ultimately, how does that invalidate my point - that these probes didn't solely condemn BB?

For instance, can't be bothered to find the source, but from wiki

wiki: WMAP's measurements played the key role in establishing the current Standard Model of Cosmology: the Lambda-CDM model. WMAP data are very well fit by a universe that is dominated by dark energy in the form of a cosmological constant. Other cosmological data are also consistent, and together tightly constrain the Model. In the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, the age of the universe is 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years. The WMAP mission's determination of the age of the universe to better than 1% precision was recognized by the Guinness Book of World Records.

When I said most of that bit of your post is true, that probably means I concur with you about Planck more or else just being a more accurate version WMAP, yes? Especially as I point out the part of that section I take issue with, which is that it was not one way traffic condemning BB. So, did WMAP verify/reverify some of BB's predictions or not?

musKeeto:
Just when you think you've read it all...

Anyone trying to verify the accuracy of the adage "reality is stranger than fiction" need not look further than here. You can't make this $hit up. Try.

Emusan: God will help you, I said in human it is SPIRIT in computer it's software one can compare them. Software is not part of the physical hareware you can create and destroy software. It's like the man that scarter radio to find what is talking inside but discover that nobody is there talking.

Software is human's code written from intelligent socure and can be trace back to whosoever wrote it. So is an information.

So, why is it SPIRIT in humans, yet software in machines? Because you say so? Are they not the same thing, in your words, "information"

Can you or can you not create software? Or is it only discovered?

Can software exist without hardware?

If your god is SPIRIT, and SPIRIT requires intelligence, then which SPIRIT wrote designed your god?

Emusan: Is it not what ooman use in his signature?

Beside, atheism, humanism e.t.c derived their stand in materialism believing in matter alone. You can see my respond to that with kay 17.

You don't know what atheism and humanism are. And again, even if you stumbled into the world of abstract and ideas and somehow quantified it, in what way does that invalidate other philosophies?

Everything in this universe is energy. Every.single.thing. Read up on fields, bosons, etc. Or do tell, what happens to the mass in matter after matter is converted energy?

Abstract concepts are different, which is what you're trying to talk about under the pseudo-scientific nonsense. But they are perhaps, peculiar...

Emusan: Yes I will which I'm also doing.
Because Christians will never curb anything just to provide a fact.

Imagine a statement like this "scientist observe, modify, and tested their laws before being approved and their laws never contradicted" I found this on Christian site. But atheists do always say Bible contradict itself.

So I love it

So it's a fact that talking snakes, man living in whale, and a racist god (who had never come across iron on a battlefield) existed here less than 6000 years ago? It's also a fact that illogical nonsense like omniscience and omnipotency exist? Look up the meaning of the word fact, it's a common word so ignorance is not an excuse.

Don't get me wrong, indulge yourself, no one's forcing you (or even capable of doing so). This board is called 'religion', so this is where you're supposed to discuss these things. But if you call out atheists with this nonsense, as proof of god/SPIRIT, of course you're going to get ridiculed. Deservedly so, keep your nonsense to yourselves. For instance, the bold is another particularly foolish thing to say, something I'd expect to hear only from someone in primary school.

This your ground breaking research, why is it only available on your xtian site? Even other xtians keep away from it, can you guess why?

^^^
Sheesh, op. No need to get so testy. I get it, software is SPIRIT


https://www.gifsforum.com/images/gif/lol/grand/dog_lol_gif.gif


Also, you have no idea as to what humanism and atheism are....


When you want to figure out who's more powerful, satan, spiderman or the holy spirit, then by all means, please, get your info from an xtian site. When you actually want to learn something real, scientific and of value, please don't go anywhere near an xtian site. To picture how silly it looks, consider BH leaders still think the world is flat....

Emusan: Read through before you place any comment don't just scan/skim through.

For Darwinian (molecules-to-man) evolution to actually work, new genetic information is required each step of the way. In order for a fish to grow legs, new information must be encoded into the DNA. For a reptile to grow feathers, new information must be encoded into the DNA. For an apelike creature to evolve into a human, new information must be encoded into the DNA. This new information must add to or replace old information with new instructions to grow legs, or feathers, or human characteristics. But what is information and where does it come from?

Foundation for materialism (atheism, humanism, evolution) is that the universe consists of only two entities "mass and energy". Therefore, if a third entity can be shown to exist, then materialism and all philosophies based on it must also be false. Information is this third fundamental entity.

The bolded is already...waaaayyyyy off. Enough to make just about capable of thinking straight ignore the rest. Exactly how are humanism, atheism, perhaps even evolution, based on materialism? And even if that were true, if you found another component, that suddenly makes philosophies built around materialism false? Because? Materialism suddenly stops to exist because you found other components?

And if you're conveniently reducing everything in the universe to two entities, "mass and energy" (the quotes in this context are ridiculously silly btw), then it should be one entity. Mass and energy are the same.

^^^
You're being asked a question and you're all 'you don't understand'. Do we look like im.beciles? Your pseudoscientific nonsense, explain it rather than copy/paste without elaborating. You did eventually attempt though, kudos for that.

vedaxcool: Inchoherency like this, keep showing why atheism is a form of brain wastage!

As a barbarian that may be a bit too hard for you to comprehend, apologies. So take it s-l-o-w-l-y.

You want to take away the rights of others, then look them in the eye and claim their fear of you is irrational. You even coin a particularly silly word, 'islamophobia', and attach it to anyone weary of your nonsense.

You're a particularly foolish creature vedax, even by /religion's standards, which frequently reach the otherwise rarely seen apex of stoopidity. So much so I consider your foolishness a logical absurdity. It shouldn't be possible, yet here you are, a living, breathing, and apparently thinking human being. I've always maintained that instead of using "Mohammed was an illiterate but he wrote the koran. Miracle, therefore; ALLAH!", you should try using "I'm supernaturally foolish, I make division by zero seem reasonable. Miracle, therefore; ALLAH!!".

Seriously, I genuinely consider you dangerous. I doubt your moral compass even exists. Were it not for the opprobrium from modern societies, etc, I could see you with a 10 year old simply because uncle Moh did so. You're a blind, vacuous, programmed zombie. Programmed with ideology from 1400 years ago, when 6 year old brides and slavery were the norm. But I'll muster up some blind, religious faith on my side, and hope you somehow understand what I'm pointing out to you here.

Fat chance, so I'm gone. Better ways to waste time than trying to get through to you.

alfaman2: Before a proper reply, I would like to point out in regards to the Nasa article you posted that these people speak with a certain confident precision about the proportions of the universe. Which is baffling because they have no clue what the size of the universe is.
How can you make up precise percentages about something the size of which you have no idea?
If they are speaking of the observable universe, they should say so. Which brings about my previous question of whether the big bang is about only the observable universe?

It should be about the observable universe solely, based mostly on results, not predictions.

I would say BB is relevant to everything inside our version of spacetime, basically the entire universe as far as we know.

We are already diving into my older thread about the antrophic principle. If in theory we cannot access anything out of the observable universe and it cannot affect us in anyway, then how relevant is it? Perhaps that's another matter though.

I'll rush this a bit.

What exactly is your problem with BB? You do not have a problem with the universe expanding, so what's the issue. You have a problem with the singularity, everything squeezed in that ridiculously small space? You have a problem with GR and present day gravity theories? You have a problem with the proposed sources of DE?

Edit; BTW, we're going to end up back at the anthropic principle, but meh