₦airaland Forum

toba: typical of NL atheists. I said most of you guys have got nothing to offer. You're just confirming this by getting agitated. Next?

Just answer the question you moro.n. Is that your infinitely wise opinion or not? Note, emphasis on the words mor.on and opinion.

And what exactly have you contributed so far other than parrot an opinion and attempt to look "big" on an anonymous online forum? Well, you did accuse others of being ignorant, frustrated and pathetic. I suppose that's your erudite take on the issue, yes?

ifeness: Very christian of you. Is this how you master jesus taught you to address others? even if they abuse you

Well, he does go around calling people who don't share his beliefs pathetic, so I really don't think he has the moral high ground here.

toba: your response sounds like u posted with ur a$$

Hmm, how does this make sense my mature elder? My "6 years here therefore I'm all bossu now" eediot, it's a simple question, is that response your wise opinion? In other words, did it come out of your a$$?

toba: You're correct young lady.

atleast having been here for about 6 years, I've come to realize this.

pathetic

This sounds to me like speaking out of your a$$. Is that correct?

frosbel: We 'run away' from jobless trolls, sounds more like it !

Not in your case. You run away when you've been b1tch slapped

No, I've not actually read this, but the title is priceless. Bumping for justice.

musKeeto: Lol, yeah.. Check his 'tattoos are evil' thread...

Oh good @deity, lol. Usual trouble in paradise or more? I suppose I should read the thread...lemme try...

benodic: seriously i really do not know why Christians keep on wasting their time arguing with atheists over the existence of God. God is big enough to convince any one directly about Its existence if it wants to. it does not need help from any puny soul to do that for It.
when a soul has reached maturity the call of soul from God breaks through the fog of confusion and non-believe and such a soul sees and hears clearly the light and the voice of God removing any doubt about the existence of God. until one is blessed with such experience it is a pure waste of time trying to convince the person. there is even no need to.

always remember the experience of Saul on the way to Damascus. prior to that he strongly believed he was doing the right thing fighting for his God by persecuting Christians until he was blinded by the light and he heard the voice telling him he was going about it the wrong way.


put your energy in purifying yourself and making yourself a better channel for God's love and giving out this love to everybody without any form of discrimination, bias or prejudice, then you are being Godlike and that is what matters.
and of course to my atheists brothers you have every right not to believe in God and nobody should harass or judge you for that. let God prove Itself to you if It really exists.
remain blessed

I disagree with so much of that while agreeing with quite a bit as well. But what I disagree with is frankly, your full prerogative, not my biz. The bold I definitely agree with. Kudos.

traeces: you want evidence that God exists? If yes then very good. Sit down and gather every material you can on your brain. read it up and come back here to tell your thoughts on how all you'll find out came to be. We should take it from there.

Could this reply be any dumber? Wtf do you think you are? As usual, arrogance from xtians. You asserted in that post that god exists, prove it else shut up. And again, I assert all those things I listed in my initial post exist, I now expect you to accept it just because, ok?

Come to think of it, you do accept jewish zombies and talking fires existed just because. Why is it so hard to accept pikkiwokki or splitting the moon in half?

traeces: In an ant's world, the internet is unimaginable that however does not make the internet any less a reality. That we percieve and relate to our physical world through the senses does not make God who is a spirit any less real. Actually, He is much more real than the things we see, smell, taste, hear and feel-for the things we see are temporal, it is the things we do not see that are eternal. Friends, GOD IS REAL!

This has already been pointed out to you, and your response has been faaarrr from satisfactory. This here translates to god is real because you say so. Or did you provide evidence anywhere?

Pure, arrogant nonsense. You expect me to believe in your god just because you say so? Good, accept my assertion that there is no god because I say so. Or allah, zeus, pikkiwokki, paying tithes to me, discriminating against other religions, the earth as the centre of the universe, women as inferior, jewish zombies, talking fires, a man splitting the moon in half, pedophilia, the earth being on the back of a turtle, santa....etc etc etc. Accept all these, plus some, just because I say so. I have after all provided as much evidence as you have; non. Perhaps you'd like some metaphysical nonsense to go with that? Fine, all this is true because there is a pot of gold at the end of every rainbow. Also, when I see suya on tv when hungry, I salivate, therefore atheism and all the other etcs.

Do you see how arrogant you are? Go and get some evidence before you come at us with this nonsense, ie is if you expect civil replies. Your other arguments are just as laughably weak, but we can stick to this for now.

And generally, how do you know you were born a theist? You do realize religion has been hammered into you from childhood? Or did you try being muslim, jain, sikh etc without any sort of pressure or indoctrination from childhood? What you're doing here is assuming you were born a manure fan, or chel$ki fan, or a jay z fan, or a republican etc. Or are you saying religious belief is biological?

plaetton: The bolded is complete bullshyt. Your studies indeed. have you published such studies for peer review? More like your desperate attempt to justify your goddism.

In your studies, you forgot to tell us what percentage of Jews are religious or actually believe in god. You would be surprised.

lets look at this issue objectively. First, who are the jews?
The jews are not a race onto themselves. Hardly so.
They are one of semitic races just like arabs.
Now, what sets a jew apart from an arab is not genes, but religion and culture.
So, we can agree that a strong devotion to their religion and culture has helped keep them closely knit.

But more than anything else, the impetus and desperate urge to survive is what has made jews seem somewhat unique from other races.
Scattered from time to time, always sorrounded by hostile enemies and occupiers, always on the verge of extinction, the powerful human impetus to survive has been the perfect bond that held the jews together.

Living on the fringes of other civilizations, far as history is concerned, the jews never built any enduring civilisation, and hardly ever left any enduring historical legacies. For most of their history, they were a people always living on the fringes of other more powerful civilizations.
Since jews never had access to power,they were relegated to live as traders, money lenders and smiths. These were seen as less noble occupations in those days.
If you know a little about how modern banking evolved from money lenders and goldsmiths, then you would understand how the jews have steadily grown very powerful over the last many centuries.

Education ,education, education.
Education has always been the great equalizer.
This is something that Jews realized long long before anyone else.
This is also something that our brain dead African leaders are yet to realize, even in this century.

In summary, success brings success. Jews educate their children and pass on their legacies to them to continue from where they stopped.
So, yes , religion and culture has been indirectly responsible for the success of the jews in modern times by giving them a unique identity, the same religion and culture, in their past, also gave them nothing but pain, persecution and failure as a civilization.

Todays Jews are a mixture of European and other Asian races.

Todays Jews are far less religious than their less successful ancestors. Majority of today's jews are cultural jews ,and not religious jews.

It is laughable to ascribe the success of a race to god. History does not agree with that. I find it laughable when someone deliberately ignores 95% of known human history just to make a case for the 5%.

Can we also say the success of the Egyptian civilization for 4000yrs was god inspired? How about the Greek civilisation? How about the Babylonian civilisation? How about the Roman Empire and civilisation?

Where are all these previously successful civilisations now? Did god abandon them or did they abandon god?

And which god is responsible for the 5000 yr old Chinese civilisation that has endured to this day and is currently on the verge of dominating the entire world?

So, do you get my drift?
God remains the same today, as it has always been: A creation of the mind.

Aaaaannnnnndddd this is mostly correct. Oyinbo chase dem commot from farms, unwittingly helping them. Perhaps our forefathers chased off some puny oyinboyish tribes from sunny africa to the same effect. Eventually jews went on to form big banking families, some believe the wealthiest that have ever been in history. I forget their names...lemme see... They've also dominated sciences, etc. Giving 'god' undue influence is a bit disingenuous. Abi was the oyinbos rise to dominance over us down to their 'god' culture as well, or directly down to god even? Nature and nurture (mostly) conspired to give them the advantage. In a sense, they were just lucky. We now, armed with education, have a chance to even things out. Our luck, since we've been born in this era

Then again, I'm still not ruling out genetics completely, though it looks more and more unlikely. It seems to be mostly a nurture thing, but again, that would depend on frequencies in populations among other things.

SNCOQ3: It seems to you, its Religion vs Reason; for me, Faith and Reason are in perfect harmony. At least you seem to agree that belief(religious or non-religious) and not gene is mainly responsible for our level of progress or non has a race(or nation if you like).

I appreciate your contribution.

In most scenarios, the bold is false. Faith in the supernatural in particular is in direct opposition to reason. That's another matter though, and I cannot say with certainty that being more reasonable equates to greater prosperity, but it very likely does.

Did you guise miss the part where it's said the nose may be capable of smell? In other words, they don't expect it to be capable of smell. This implies they're just building basic skin and tissue, a simple tunnel to put on his face. You do realize you breath with your lungs yes? The nose is just a passage to the destination, yes?

It's simple plastic surgery more or else, except they are using a nose custom grown, rather than stiching parts from say his body.

SNCOQ3: Nobody is insisting on putting God in everything. God is already in everything and His law concerning prosperity is a universal law and not exclusive to Christians or Jews. If you work hard, you'll enjoy the fruit of your labor... What you sow is what you shall harvest in abundance.... Invest in research and development and you'll make your scientific breakthrough and technological advancement.

When a nation is built on the foundation of:
Integrity(Holiness), Equity(Justice) and Empathy(Love) That nation will prosper even if they don't acknowledge God . Take this values away and that nation will rot from within.(Holiness, Justice and Love is the three attributes of God Character).

We don't need a god to recognize those traits as productive or to realize that attaining them are worthwhile pursuits. Simple common sense points in that direction. Gods are also the grand placebo, the number one excuse to throw reason into a bin. The excuse to sit around and wait for miracles. The one that urges irrationality and sacrifice in this world at the expense of gains in a hypothetical next.

They might help matters in moderation but fervent reliogosity never, ever does. Even the secular sort (eg communism). So frankly, as far as issues as these are concerned, mixing religion is a totally unnecessary thing to do especially when you consider the baggage that it comes with. Reason, logic based on natural laws we can verify should take precedence.

Evil Brain: The reasons why different societies develop at different rates have been well studied and don't have jackshît to do with genetics, religion or culture. Jared Diamond broke it down well in his excellent book, Guns Germs and Steel.

The short version is that the differences are due to geography, climate and the types of plants and animals available for domestication.

Follow the link for more detail.

[url] www.edge.org/3rd_culture/diamond/diamond_p2.html [/url]

This is juicy

Instinct tells me we blacks in particular are more emotional than say oyinbo. Empathy does have some basis in genetics even if environment does play a part. So usually I'd say it's another nature vs nurture issue.

However, I've seen reports that say for instance that the general increase in height over the last few hundred years is not a result of genetics per se, but of dietry changes. In other words, the genes always had the ingredients, people just weren't nurtured to grow tall. So we could be wired to be just as ruthless(?) as oyinbo but our environment simply hinders it. If that is the case then yes, it could all be down to nurture, not nature. This is more or else what this article seems to be saying I think.

Note, I have nothing to back up my assertion that we're more emotional, or that being more emotional hinders technological advancement (though it likely does). It could be another trait or a combo that hinders our progress scientifically, like the one which must not be spoken out loud; we simply might be less intelligent on certain scales. Regardless of whatever combo may be inhibiting us scientifically though, it really could all be down to nurture.

It could be settled with this; of the few genes we've been able to identify that are related to intelligences like say IQ, do the races share similar frequencies? From what I understand we know too little about genetics and how intelligence works to determine that. You do work in biology I think, so, is this the case?

Random: one also has to consider different races faring differently in similar situations. Black man wasn't the only one oppressed yet we seem to be worse off than many others in similar situations. Then again, observe situations like the emigrations to the usa. Germans for instance, arrived and integrated well with society meanwhile the irish on the other hand, not so much. I would think genetically the two groups would be fairly similar overall, more so than say comparing either with kanuris, yes? But there were still significant differences between them with regards to how well they adapted to their new environment. So, was it all down to social differences or nurture? Most likely. That should obviously apply to us as well. Buutt, we don't fully understand the relationship between intelligence and genes, or intelligence and progress (yes we don't, far east have highest average IQs, save of course some european jews, yet you don't see them dominating say the nobels in sciences.), etc. Meh. Oh, yes, I should finish the article before commenting

Insisting on putting god into everything is part of the problem. Some acknowledge it yet still do it?

Ihedinobi: Oh I don't know, was I thinking?

I know not what to do with your folly these days...
I'll just retire... Che

Ihedinobi: My word! This thread was great entertainment! Atheists and their hollow circles of argument. They start a defence and it ends up biting them in their asss. "If God exists He must have been created", but also they say, "the universe was never created"! Incredible. When they get caught in their indefensible arguments, they attack God's morals only to turn around and declare that there are no moral authorities, leaving everyone wondering how they manage to judge God then.

Geez! Being an atheist must leave the brains in one helluva twist! lol

And how does this show you're clear thinking?

striktlymi: Good evening wiegraf,

I quite agree with you and I believe your points make so much sense but I believe that some ish are best solved privately.

I don't think solving "personal" differences privately would undermine the openess and "sincerity" nairaland is known for.

Just like in a family, the kids need not be privy to everything that goes on in the bedroom, so too every member on nairaland need not know about the ish between moderators.

Thanks!

Yes, I suppose this stands for 'personal' problems, definitely. So long as the parties want that of course. I don't think it's crossed that line yet though, then again I could be wrong good ser. Tricky. But meh

I do enjoy me some troll threads...

Actually, openness is always good. Who should have anything to hide? This isn't some super secret forum of vast importance with the fate of the world hanging in the balance. Anonymity is even an option to allow for the breaking of barriers, no? Disharmony is a small price to pay for honesty, accountability, freedom etc

Logicboy03: Aww....so sorry menn. I would die if my dad/brothers cut me off from the family. I guess I am not as strong as you. Luckily for me, most of my family members are Western educated and so, they grudgingly accepted my disbelief after a period of heated arguments.

Thanks meehn, I'm rather cool with it so nothing special though. You could either be a sheeple or a lone wolf, the only choice left for a lot of us. I'm very happy being the latter, even at the risk of looking like an eediot.

Logicboy03: Tell us more about this disinheritance if possible, please

Nothing spectacular. I have no say in family matters or how they played out. Non at all, split these ways, who got what, etc. Just got some cash which they make known to me was from the 'goodness' of their hearts, more or else lol. The new family head explicitly did tell me I have no say in these issues, he also does what he can to 4k up my style, actually sabotages me greatly (like say by interfering with my academics back in the day). Generally I just have him tagged as an epic azzhole, an extraordinally selfish pr1ck. Of course to most society he is known as a model human being.

Anyways, petty strifes of that nature do not suit me at all, and as my dad's last days were winding down he became more and more religious. He always was, just never fanatically dedicated. Since I think he was an awesome man I think it rather churlish to disrespect his will which I assume would be in tune with his religious beliefs, so I don't really contend those issues (still ongoing it seems, years later, apparently islamically that's bad, something about not going to heaven until they are resolved. Cherry picking is of course not beyond religious peeps).

plaetton: ^^^^
An atheist , on the other hand, is the greatest threat to this mentally contrived omni omni of the universe. Its like pouring sand for their make-belief garri.

Of course many would vociferously deny this. It might apply to all of them but it does to a great many of them

@logic, I can't even comment. I'm careful for the most part, but have of coursed faced discrimination like disinheritance, though I don't contend that. He was a muslim so I respect his beliefs. Of course there's self righteous azzholes in every family, needless to say I stay away. If I remember anything that stood out I'll post.

Honorable mention though of religious people who despite the constant whispers in their heads urging them to be douches they still end up being decent human beings. I can't say there are many of these though

Mr_Anony: Yawn....

Yes I know, yawn. Much earlier I told @david I'd leave him to his folly, he's ignored me (wisely, but not for the reasons you think). Mayhaps under the pretense of being mature? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. Well, perhaps a byproduct of being a troll, he can't claim to be mature if all his other actions scream immaturity now, can he? Anyways you, on the hand, have persisted in 'lol', 'yawn', etc, your usual shenanigans. Nothing of value maybe, school boy playground antics. I don't care per se except I get the impression you try to pass yourself off as some sort of mature adult. If you don't then you're fine, else you're being, as usual, an eediot.

From here on out is even less relevant, just fun.

You indulge me despite the fact I don't bother with you much anymore these days? I'm honored but I don't necessarily need that. Can't remember the last time I read a proper post of yours with any sort of serious attention, they tend to be cringe worthy displays of what it's like to be a whor.e. I've not even read your infamous "when I was an atheist" post yet, though I agree it's probably juicy. Likely featuring these elements listed below. Note they work in conjunction and overlap to produce a great synergy of disharmony and illogic unlike any other, one I now endearingly (or derisively) call; anonysm. So...

Answering questions with silly questions meant to do something, not sure what. Perhaps annoy, but it genuinely might be that you think they make you look wise. Like asking me when did @david invoke the crocoduck argument earlier on. Don't you think it obvious I was aware he hadn't yet used that inane argument? This is one of the more famous anonysms.

Warped logic I call 'anonylogic', containing some incredible assumptions made with remarkable single mindedness. Usually I can spot these from afar and save myself the embarrassment as they tend to start with "I put it to you that..." or "the question that follows...". Then of course you proceed to provide jumps in logic akin to equating sandwiches to unicorns. For instance, I note you ask @lb earlier on if one can believe in spirits or life after death (I forget which) without believing in god. Un-4king-believable.

The selfish assumption that it's all about you. I mean, how could there be spirits without your god, hmm? We've gotten jewels like a multi-verse is not possible without god (yes, I haven't really read the thread true, but it's not hard to guess that would be the gist of your argument, see?), or being good is not possible without god, or taking a $hit is not possible without god, or ra.ping babies, genocides, aids, cancer, plagues, all suffering etc not possible without god...actually I think you like to conveniently omit the last bits. Anyways, your god seems to need show up everywhere. You also assume atheists are out to persecute you, your religions are special and thus above the law (this of course leads to their dictating laws), etc etc etc. you you you you

Blatant lying, shifting positions continuously. For instance mazaje seemed to be pointing out recently you brought out someone's arguments to aid your point about life after death or something similar, said person mentioned a multi-verse. Next thing we know, you open a thread declaring the multi-verse impossible. Now now yes, like I said, I usually just skim through or skip anonyposts these days but I believe that was the gist of your thread. If not a simple guess would be that it was it's impossible for other universes to exist without god? Amiright? Lol. Not so hard to see where anonysms lead. Anyways, assuming I'm wrong, clearer examples

-When it suits your case you can refute claims by showing how said claims are wrong, when it doesn't your opponent suddenly needs to go as far as providing an alternate theory.

www.nairaland.com/1134332/logicboy-meets-anony-again-philosophy/11

(Look up my post @3:06, kpele, bb can't get the correct url. Let's not get into how inane and arrogant it is of you to assume you know if the future is predetermined or not. Fantastically, I believe you draw your conclusions from a story book no less!)

Or here you understand what 'natural' evil is when it aids your case, the concept then becomes nonsense when it doesn't do so. I like this one particularly as it even features indignation from you, despite your knowing earlier on what natural evil entails, IN THE VERY SAME THREAD

www.nairaland.com/1009338/succinctly-anony/6
(Go to my post @ 11:46 on that page)


You should get the point by now you man whor.e.



And probably more anonytactics which frankly you should leave in the anonyverse in your head as they're rather disgusting. Your prerogative though of course


Which would you use now, 'lol' or 'yawn'?

Y'all do realize this particular hero is all about love, not thinking

Mr_Anony: True....but it equally doesn't make the position you are attacking wrong either

It doesn't, but when dealing with you clowns I'm usually right.

Mr_Anony: Lol, It is now free for all abi? Ok o! you are free to have your fun as we are equally free to not take you seriously.

So? Do note though, it doesn't make what I assert wrong.

Mr_Anony: Lol, care to show us where he talked about a "crocoduck"? Or did you just make that up to serve as an excuse for you to launch an ad hominen attack?

Don't you think the part where I ask "what's that?" implies I'm aware he hasn't mentioned the crocoduck, yet? You also know that the crocoduck argument in its various inane forms does not apply to only our half crocodile half duck ancestor, yes? It is his, and probably yours, inevitable vacuous response.

So yes I am launching an ad hominen for the most part, but I'm not making stuff up to do so. And why not? Was the thread about evolution? Yet he felt the need to mention it. I suppose that makes it a free for all now, no?

davidylan: I wasnt making any arguments so i wonder what circular arguments you were particularly worried about. I for one have largely refrained from posting so much around here because of the number of times i have to reach for the sick bucket.

I thought it was because you're an eediot.

Wait for it, personal attack, abi? A biologist who's never seen any evidence for evolution certainly qualifies as one, no? What's that, why haven't we seen the crocoduck? Wtf are you a scientist? *smh*

Do feel free to enjoy your folly though

greatgenius: ok you seem to like dancing or maybe you just like the thrill of the back and forth. I usually don't have the time especially if we are only going in circles.. . How can the term be "meaningless" if it means something else to you. You used the term and I simply asked YOU to explain what it means to YOU. And you start dancing.. What is what it means to me or anyone else has to do with my question? .

I see what you're trying to do, but I'll ignore that. That asides, I said it may mean something else to me, I never said it definitely would. And that is, again, giving you the benefit of the doubt even if you don't explicitly ask for it. I was assuming you have a definition better than the standard religious looneys. That definition of spiritual to me translates to completely nonsensical magical rubbish. So I suppose that would be my definition of spiritual, basically nonsense people make up to make themselves feel special.

greatgenius: 1. I think I have already told you this but simply put Auric colors are the colors emanated from the psychic atmosphere or electromagnetic field or Aura of an object.. I had listed earlier the auric pairs of colors. The human aura is an emanation from the soul, or the person whom it surrounds. It is akin to the rays of the sun. For humans the aura usually has an egglike shape and surrounds the person.

There are no such thing as 'psychic atmosphere' or souls. I'd ask for definitions but you can't seem to offer one for spirituality, so I'll go with the default. As for electromagnetism, if your eyes are not biologically fitted to perceive it then you can't see it. End of. Anything else is a trick of the mind

greatgenius: 2. Well for the colors I saw all their auric pairs. For the second image I also saw yellow at where they intersect which is what should happen. Anyway so what exactly is the gap that the brain is supposed to help perceive.

If you're using a mobile device maybe it does not play animated gifs as the first pic is animated. There are no 'auric pairs'(?) anywhere there at all. If you look it the 'x' in centre long enough the circles around it disappear completely. As for the second, the bands will start alternating in intensity, ie one color will become more conspicuous while the other fades almost completely, they then switch intensity continuously.

So with the first for instance, the circles are very clearly there objectively yet you cannot see them after a while. Simple demonstration of why one cannot trust human perception as sources of any sort of objective 'truth'. You could carry someone to court and he would swear that the circles did indeed disappear, but that does not mean the circles objectively disappeared, does it?

They clearly didn't, he just perceived it so.

greatgenius: 3. The bit about subjective experiences is just plain ignorant and I don't want to get on that tangent. But understand that " objective " truth is not always "truth".

No, it isn't ignorant in any way, and you cannot back up your assertion logically. It's disingenuous to pretend you somehow can (you've already more or else failed anyhoo). Objective 'truth' is always true. 1 + 1 = 2, regardless of anyone's perception and what not. There's good reason why in a court a hundred people could all corroborate certain events taking place but then have their testimony tossed out because of irrefutable physical evidence contradicting their claims. Many, many experiments have been performed which show just how rubbish human perception can be. Simply consider how one perceives time for instance

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

This is very simple for the most part, subjective 'truths' are in no way truths that can be used to say, persecute a person. At all. Or make decisions that would effect other people (like condemning a country to war because 'god told me so', or blowing people up for 72 vir.gins, discriminating against gays, etc). If it makes one feel happy then fine, but they certainly should not expect others to feel the same. You shouldn't expect your hippie theories to be taken seriously by any critical thinker, or, rather particularly, assume they are intrinsically in any way as valuable as objective truths (at least when dealing with others). It's all in your head.

Yooguyz: are you doubting the fact that God can heal a dumb man?
Btw i don't believe in your xplanation above cos if it were so pressure from relatives could has caused him to speak a long time ago!

I'm quite sure judeoxtian god can't heal a dumb man as I'm 99.9999999999999...% sure judeoxtian god doesn't exist. As for the explanation, for all the other kids who were in similar conditions, you think they're relatives didn't try?