₦airaland Forum

truthislight: something ignited matter to life.

Not necessarily conscious. In fact, not likely.

Not so relevant, but AI progress

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/robot-altruism/

coogar: it's 4th grade quality - you need to up the ante.....

Personally, I like it for the most part. At least it's much better than say yours. But that's another topic

coogar: you should be a poster boy for mongolian idiöts!
how daft can one be? i support slavery? the same thing i have condemned your barbaric and animalistic ancestors for? if i support slavery, why am i cursing your ancestors, you homoerotic nuisance? you must have skipped logic classes in school - no wonder you cannot amount to anything in life than coming online to foam in the mouth like a photosensitive epileptic patient!

Hold on to the bolded and read this...

coogar: it's very acceptable some 2000 yrs ago......

Genius. I didn't even need to quote another post. hehehehe, you m.oron

Or it's only acceptable when jews do it? Ah yes, only when it was done 2000 years ago by jews. Your parents no try...

coogar: what kind of stupidity strain do your chromosomes carry for feck's sake? are we still on the same frequency cos i fail to see how eating shellfish and slavery are analogous....if you cannot cope with the pace of the discourse, then quit it!
owning slave is now wrong after 3000 yrs. it was not wrong then. there was no law against owning slaves. when there's no law, there's no sin. in the next 2000 yrs, the coming generations would also consider you as barbaric for eating chickens, owning pet animals or even possessing a gun. it's what it is........

you are a consummate airhead!
i cannot make head or tail from your incoherent missive. you must suffer from some sort of brain cancer. i have never read so much vacuous comments from any individual since i joined this forum. it must suck for you that you are singlehandedly the most idiotic poster this forum has ever produced.

Oh boy, u stoopid no be small. As in, enough to invoke pity. Your god bows down to the whims of humanity? We decide what he decrees as law? The bolded is particularly fantastic as well.

So, my incredibly slavish, irrational and foo.lish blockhead of a friend. Slavery is never, has never ever been acceptable. Ever. It may be the very last option for some of us mere mortals, others may simply have been bred as sheep and actually just flowed with society, indeed being happy (like you), but it has NEVER been acceptable. There always could have been a better option a more educated being, like say your dog, could have recommended. Actually, even enforced considering omnipotence, but we don't see that.

Again, and since I'm not getting paid to school you this will be the last time I point this out, an omnipotent does not, ever, need to compromise. The great creator of the cosmos, of the myriad galaxies you've deluded yourself into thinking he built just so he could watch big brother earth, making a compromise? What happened to "it is all his will" your great re.tardness? He would state clearly, with or without our approval, his views on an issue. Free will nonsense you like to invoke or no, he would state his law, and 4k what anyone thinks. He is dog, no? He had time to condemn and talk about all the things I listed (working on sabbath, eating shell fish, living in fish (err mammal), etc) yet he never found the time to strongly condemn slavery?

If he never condemned it, or indeed supported it, then he doesn't give a 4k about it or indeed approves it, or he was afraid of stating his real opinions because he did not want to lose 'votes'. ie, he would have sold out on his ideals in order to satisfy the powers that be of the day that supported slavery. So which is it? Did your omnipotent dog approve of slavery or was he afraid of looking politically incorrect?

And don't try to hide and claim it was some sort of harmless slavery. That is patently disingenuous, so much so it's disgusting. You'll do anything for your master, like claim slavery is harmless, hmm? Really sad. Children born into slavery, as already pointed out earlier...sheesh. Pathetic excuse for a human you are. Even for adults, you actually think it was all voluntary? Even if we ignore that and focus on those who as adults voluntary sold themselves into slavery, all I've said still very much stands.

The fact that all this needs to be repeatedly pointed out to you says a lot.

coogar: your ancestors are barbarians - particularly the ones in the niger-delta. i know you are slow but please engage your brain once and read about their atrocities. they traded slaves for cowries, ammunition and alcohol. even after slavery was abolished in the world over, the africans refused to stop trading slaves. it took the british a full blown war to fight your ancestors in the niger-delta to effectively stop slavery.

thanx for admitting your ancestors are stüpid. the fruit don't fall far from the tree anyways. why should i expect you to have any sort of mother wit when you are a direct descendant of pillocks and plonkers? you are an oaf and your ancestors are no different!

Therefore, they deserved to be enslaved!!!

Again, they were stoopid. Everyone's ancestors were stoopid at one time or the other, what's your point? They were stoopid therefore they deserved to be enslaved? Makes perfect sense to me.

coogar: it seems you fell off a simpleton tree.
the other bumbling oaf asked why the old testament is still used - i simply replied that you cannot erase history and far majority of the contents are still relevant whilst some have been overtaken by civilisation. it's up to the reader to take what applies to his idealism and ignore the rest. it's called common sense - if jesus were to come back today, he would modify the existing laws in the bible to fit into what obtains in the world today. he stopped those men who had wanted to kill a pröstitute, didn't he?


exactly my point.....
those who use some certain sections of the good book to commit murder are twisted - just like you. that part of the old testament can no longer be relevant these days. i would expect anyone with an iota of common sense to know what obtains in this day and age and do away with archaic laws.

you are the failure cos you have failed to grasp the single most important fact in this issue. more than 3000 yrs have passed between the 10 commandments and 2013.

For the bolded, so he should be given a medal for doing what any decent human being with simple common sense would have done?

Anyways, again, your stoopidity beggars belief. So, you guys just cherry pick from the inerrant word of god? Do you know what cognitive dissonance means, hmm? Did you read @colds post at all? So the word has to be adapted to fit the whims of man, hmm? Again, if xtianity originated from mayan america it would have had to allow for human sacrifises? They were the norm them, no? Yes, yes, of course, like abaraham. Making him near kill his own son to test his 'faith'

Nice to see you admitting y'all make $hit up as you go though (and a lot of other nonsense too). And of course you have no problem with your role models collecting foreskins?

Well done

coogar: at this rate, i might have to make a quick dash to the cash machine to buy you some artificial intelligence - you are so poor in spirit you see rainbow in black and white. your ancestors sold their kinsmen for pennies and you compare that to the salvation of the christians? i said it - it's damn impossible for you to make an intelligent comment - you must function on a single digit intelligence quotient.


stop foaming in the mouth before you get seizures and kill yourself.
you have not advanced any point here - you are just trumpeting what logicfool and his army of lunatics had said previously. you are one of those obdurate wankërs with little or no mental faculty who sees the internet as a medium to express their frustrations.

Do you even know what the word intelligence means? Simple things have been explained over and over to you, but it seems a lost cause without crayons, diagrams, miracles etc.

If you don't have a point, why waste energy on all the insults? To mask stoopidity? It only highlights it.

There is no hope for you, I'm surprised you qualify as homo sapien. Actually, I'm not even sure if chimpanzees would accept you as one of their own. You're far too stoopid, so proceeding would be a waste of time. I've said all that needed saying here. kudos, at least for this thread, my good slave, yet great master of the whargarbl

Ihedinobi: Actually I'm finding all this interesting and I wonder if we won't get away from the purpose of this thread countering the reasons atheists and agnostics give for "leaving religion".

I prefer that each of the "non-religious" feel free to tell their story and I advise anyone who wishes to address any of their stories to open specific threads to do so and link it here. I intend to address two or three people here particularly if they will indulge me, but I might only be able to do so two or three days from now. If anyone beats me to it, I'll gladly join their thread.

So guys, just let the stories flow, take the war elsewhere, pretty please.

You're asking for a lot considering m.orons like this chedar guy...

I best go someplace else. I shouldn't even have time for this anyways...

truthislight:

I don't even think it's a synergy per say, though it could be stated as so. The sum is greater than the parts. You have a car, the engine is responsible for combustion. A computer? The cpu is responsible for processing. A brain? It's responsible for consciousness. Really simple. Anything more complicates matters and seems completely unnecessary.

How did a machine become self conscious? Like the game of life, from simple to complex. Just like all nature, except the primary building blocks, more or else. Given billions of years and a nice great deal of time, machines as complex as us can evolve. The fact we're the only species we know of that has our level of sentience does not indicate some sort of deliberate design, at all. In fact it points in the completely opposite direction. But that's digressing a bit.

I can't remember where I read it but I understand all human tasks, processes etc can be simulated by a turing complete machine. In other words (in theory, we obviously don't have capable machines yet) a computer can reproduce any task a human can. That's obviously not a coincidence. I'll see if I can find my source though.

musKeeto: The atheist's weakness when arguing with most theists on NL is quite evident on this thread.

They emphasize on the use of reason and logic to make valid points.

Faith and extreme obeisance to the great dog will just nick it for the theists.

You can never trump faith, never.

You wan kill me? I was eating when I read that, I nearly choked...

E tire me...meh...

coogar: you are a disgrace to the community that sponsored your education - what's the meaning of the drivel you typed above? your approach at best is bereft of common sense with your below average penmanship....

You don't like my penmanship?

coogar: because as at the time the bible was written, slavery was part and parcel of humanity. owning slaves was not a bad thing just like owning cattles, sheep, cows and poultry wasn't a bad thing. the bible only promulgated laws and the boundaries a slave must act within. unless you were born feet first with cooked brains, i cannot find any fault with the bible.

So, my wonderful example of xtian charity, you think slavery is acceptable? It was "not a bad thing"? Even today's version of slavery, which clearly still exists under different guises?

You think the unerring word of god could not have said something forcefully against such a scourge, yet it had time to discuss killing people who ate shell fish, living in a fish for 3 days, killing those who work on sabbath, etc etc?

If owning cattle was wrong in some way, like say they all gave us mad cow by just being in their vicinity, then the right thing to do would be to condemn owning cattle you eediot. Owning slaves is wrong, in any fashion, your dog didn't seem to care much.

Oh wait... My bad. You think slavery was good...

coogar: your father must have had a profound influence on you - he was a lunatic! in essence, i am saying the bible only told us about the law that governs slave owners and their slaves. it's a commandment directing how humans must act towards another and it was written more than 2000 yrs ago. as at then, the law also said every witch must die and every pröstitute must be put to death - in your own limited intelligence, it then means the bible supports murder or the bible is barbaric? where do these half-baked nigerian graduates come from?

You're saying what I said, you m.oron; dog's message was diluted to appeal to masses. Omnipotent dog has to bow down to the times and play politician. Curious. Human law said thus, and thus omnipotent god had to accommodate for it. Was he afraid of strongly condemning slavery?

And your eediocy continues. Perhaps it's some sort of medical disorder..

coogar: you should chair the committee of the mental handicaps. on one side of your mouth you admitted everyone's ancestors were barbarians at some point in their history and on the other side of that cesspit you called your mouth, it's silly to say the ancestors were barbarians? you are a product of a failed society - this is why it's kinda difficult for you to process information mentally.

..hmm, like maybe a mental handicap? It is silly to say your ancestors are barbarians, hence they deserved to be enslaved, you imbe.cile. Anyone with a working brain would be able to tell you that.

coogar: what is this odious charlatan talking about?
spare me your idiocy and your asinine comments. you are not making any sense. whoever hangs on the coattails of the laws written 2000 yrs ago is a complete bellend and i have no doubt in my mind you are a simpleton!

Why are you completely avoiding the fact that the bible has some great models of human behavior we should all look up to with this nonsense? Does this address the issue, in any way?

Seems your programming has come across a divide by zero error, or maybe it's set up to turn you rabid in these situations. You brought up the issue of OT being void these days earlier on in the thread your eediotness, I was just pointing out how disingenuous that cop out is.

coogar: why are you bellyaching because i said your ancestors were barbarians? why are you hurt your ancestors sold their own people to slavery to gain material wealth? these are the facts and stop talking about the ancestors of the other races - they are not my concern! i am focusing on the atrocities committed in the niger-delta during the transatlantic slave trade era.

Do you hear me complaining about that, hmm? I do think something had to be done, just not slavery you ret.ard.

Note, slave, unlike many around I do think our ancestors were remarkably foo.lish, but I think people like you trump them, unquestionably. You've sold out your entire being to become a slave for jesus, or are just incredibly stoopid. I do hope the latter is the case.

Anyways, they sold us out for mirrors, you, for an invisible ticket to an invisible heaven. Despite all the education available today, which they did not have mind you, you remain a slave. Again, I hope your views are not motivated by selfishness, I really do, else you stand as excellent proof that there's little hope for humanity. Even your fellow brainwashed don't condone slavery, your slave masters do their best to sweep it under the rug or make amends, you remain here proudly supporting it. Lol

An eediot to trump them all

coogar: in the pundity of hard currency, your intelligence at best would be the zimbabwean dollars. without any shadow of doubt, i have seen more intelligent silverback apes in chester zoo. where did i say the prophets failed to convey the message clearly? if they failed, how did the gospel reach the niger-delta? who gave your ancestors clothes to wear? who brought education to your ancestors? who stopped the killing of twins in calabar?

Erm, re.tard, if slavery was not condoned by god yet his books were used repeatedly to justify it (well, they don't exactly condemn slavery, do they?), wouldn't that qualify as a failure? Another one to chalk up to your omnixx.x god, no?

However, again, you are the genuine article, a truly brainwashed goat. I never thought I'd come across someone as m.oronic as you in my life, I'm serious. Someone that actually supports slavery. So you can't blame me for not accomodating the option of finding a human with an actual brain that supports slavery in my post. And this is your case, you actually think there was nothing wrong with the message delivered. In fact, seems to me you think it perfect. Incredible what a fellow human can be reduced to...


Note: Come to think of it his books were recently used in that region to justify the child witch hunts, no? Luckily though these days there are sane HUMANS who step out to stop such nonsense. That's another issue though

coogar: at this juncture, to call you a rëtard would be an insult to the people suffering from trisomy13.......you are far worse.....you epitomise all that is wrong with humans in the 21st century. i can understand people who acknowledge that there's a God but they have refused to follow him....however, to stand there and ptyalise there's no God is rather idiotic! so i hope i speak for all and sundry when i ask you, with all due respect, to fück off.

Lol. Legendary but.thurt levels attained. Perhaps there's even more? Super sayan mode maybe. You about to hand out some justice, OT style?


Note, again, 4k you're stoopid

greatgenius: ok I think you mistaking my for someone else.. I have never said the soul does not exist.. why should I..

You are the one confused not me.. it is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of what is.. And what is is that the Soul is around, in, and through the body.. it is that which contains the body.. your soul is bigger than the body and bigger than you think . the body cannot contain the soul.. unlike the mind the soul is everywhere in , around and throughout the body..

And you as well, ffs, this is as simple as it gets. YOU HAVE ZERO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR NONSENSE, LOGICAL OR EMPIRICAL. NON. AT ALL. ZILCH. NADA. BABU. So don't go around stating it as fact. Believe in whatever drivel you want to believe in, cows splitting moons in half even (uncle moh style), but calling it fact is insulting the intelligence of those around you. I applaud the fact that you try to keep your nonsense exclusively in threads that deal with fairy tales though, so I shouldn't be complaining much.

Logicboy03: Reetard, how dare you ask for empirical evidence! Do you have empirical evidence for your soul?


Hypocrite

I was 4king nonplussed as well. I mean really, wtf??

@slav.. Err coogar

The eediocy you've displayed explores new depths. I probably should ignore you, but I'll point out some of your foo.lisness as it could aid the few saner religious out there, even if my approach may not be the most lucid.

Sure we could forgive and forget, proffer solutions rather than play the blame game, but to blindly defend doctrine that supports or condones slavery beggars belief. Brainwashing, slavery, I don't know what to call it except surreal. Now, I couldn't read all of that as it was frankly rather repulsive, but some notes here

In essence you, our great hero, are saying that in order to survive xtianity had to compromise by allowing slavery. Wow. The word of the absolute ruler of the cosmos, compromised just so he could score some political points. Again, this word, supposedly final, unquestionably wise and true, unerring etc, was/is diluted just so it could have some populist appeal. Fantastic, Dog the politician. Frankly, you strike me as another imb.ecile who would not have problems with societies mixing religion and politics. Like an xtian version of the regular muslim. So if xtianity had originated from south america around the epoch of the mayans dominance, it should have adulterated its message to allow for human sacrifice, abi? Ah, yes, but of course; abraham*


Everyone's ancestors were barbarian at one point or the other. Even if not strictly black civilizations, I believe when egyptians and nubians were boss the rest were regarded as barbarians, yes? In fact, most societies though history have regarded their neighbors as being barbarians, no? As for pure savagery, at some point or the other one group may have been more barbaric, at another time less, etc. To say your ancestors were barbarians is silly as depending on the era, everyone had barbarians as ancestors. But regardless, how the 4k does their being barbarians justify slavery in any shape, way or form? Are you saying there were no other alternative means of 'civilizing' them? Two wrongs make a right? Another compromise? Or was the aim of condoning slavery something other than rehabilitating the barbarians? 4k you're stoopid



And the silly OT is irrelevant argument, seen here again, causing a great deal of bemusement to those not blinded by your faith. NT being all nice and flowery is a veneer, the unavoidable problem is that OT dog and his followers infamy is very well deserved yet they still remain ROLE MODELS. God, the omnibenovelent, the being we should look up to, hardens hearts then kills children. Brilliant. The other dude, I forget his name, that collects foreskins should be lauded as well for his commitment to the cause, yes? Just like abraham's shenanigans with his son, hmm? Or those who killed people that worked on sabbath?

I wonder who the barbarians in today's world would be.





*Btw don't you think political compromise is more the style of say a...human? Rather than the great omnipotent, hmm? What's that you say? his prophets failed to convey his message clearly? Then what the hell has been doing since to rectify the problem? Ah, hell, that's right. He's probably there hanging out with strippers, hmm?

truthislight: folly ke?

Oh!

Warever!

About that thread, feel free to POINT out what you dont understand therein.

I understand your folly in that thread brah, at least I can manage that. It's whatever version of 'truth' you spewed on this thread that seems to make as much sense as a never ending kilometer which confounds me. Spake, explain yourself!

And who are the clowns above?


Anyways, that's not why I'm here. I'm curious as to how fans of souls resolve issues raised a fairly common device encountered in science fiction; teleporters. There are different varieties, but what the star trek version does is copy every quark (I suppose, I do wonder what uncertainty has to say about that) in you, destroys you, then recreates an exact copy of you, quark by quark, elsewhere.

Now note that in theory, this is possible at some level. In fact today teleporters exist, except iirc all they're capable of teleporting atm amounts to little more than some particle or the other. And of course there's cloning, which may not be exact atom to atom copies but still fairly accurate. But anyways, as a teleporter basically kills you then recreates you, what does that say about souls? And in the case of accidents where you're left with 2 copies of the same person, has the replicator just created a soul?

Note that like I said I am not trying to make a point. You can believe in souls or the moon being made of cheese, so long as one isn't a bigot etc I fail to see the problem. But how do you resolve this?

truthislight: folly ke?

Oh!

Warever!

About that thread, feel free to POINT out what you dont understand therein.

I understand your folly in that thread brah, at least I can manage that. It's whatever version of 'truth' you spewed on this thread that seems to make as much sense as a never ending kilometer which confounds me. Spake, explain yourself!

And who are the clowns above?


Anyways, that's not why I'm here. I'm curious as to how fans of souls resolve issues raised a fairly common device encountered in science fiction; teleporters. There are different varieties, but what the star trek version does is copy every quark (I suppose, I do wonder what uncertainty has to say about that) in you, destroys you, then recreates an exact copy of you, quark by quark, elsewhere.

Now note that in theory, this is possible at some level. In fact today teleporters exist, except iirc all they're capable of teleporting atm amounts to little more than some particle or the other. And of course there's cloning, which may not be exact atom to atom copies but still fairly accurate. But anyways, as a teleporter basically kills you then recreates you, what does that say about souls? And in the case of accidents where you're left with 2 copies of the same person, has the replicator just created a soul?

Note that like I said I am not trying to make a point. You can believe in souls or the moon being made of cheese, so long as one isn't a bigot etc I fail to see the problem. But how do you resolve this?

musKeeto: Lol, abi make we start to dey check for root cause of theism?
smh, like say atheism na disease

There's always this assumption that something must have happened *smh*. Lack of imagination, so they can't see how another position could be the default. And of course, again, they'll call us close minded. Puzzling...

truthislight: i know, yes i know,
(i really need the greatest faith that i have ever hard though) i will survive naira land with my sanity.(laughing in ten languages)

i know, yes i am strong enough(lmho)

Wandering with great wanderment!

I still don't understand most of what you say. I'll deal with your folly on the other thread later...

By the way, hope you've been good oga?

Deep Sight: Lol. As regards my *insert terrible insults here* you are taking me far too seriously. I am having a laugh myself at some of the *insert terrible insults here* I am heaping on logicboy.

But this, o disciple, thou must take away from here: Richard Dawkins is a certified re.tard: this is a sacred truth which cannot be negotiated. Nor can it be avoided by all the laurels of all the universities in all the cities of the universe.

He has written some of the greatest gibberish to be written in the last two thousand years of human history, and is only celebrated by clots.

Now come and draw thee near: are you also telling me that you glean a sensible point in the OP?

Speak straight.

For I have prepared and lengthened mine whip unto thee, as hot coals on the backs of slaves shall it proceed and make thy back its dwelling place.

Now stand up and speak.

Again, my only concern is with the part where you call people who celebrate him clots. And that's not exactly what you stated earlier. I believe you called people who think him intelligent as being unintelligent, more or else. But as you're having a laugh I may be assigning too much weight to your comments

As for the op, also again, he's a trained scientist looking for a physical basis to their beliefs. It's probably just the way he thinks. His having a poor understanding of how 'souls' work is understandable, as I'm not even sure if there's a proper definition for the word, is there? At least, not one a scientist would understand. Everyone who believes has his or her own nice 'true' definition for souls and how they work

And after actually reading it (ok, I lied a bit, I may not have been paying real attention), this was probably said to a pro-life campaigner. If her stance is built around fetus/placentas/whatever having souls, and by her definition (if that indeed is her definition, can't tell) consciousness is necessary for a soul to exist, then obviously anything without a brain cannot have a soul, no? So why would she be against abortion? It need not be for this reason he made that statement, but the point is context.

And now I should get to work

Deep Sight: Look, I do not even know if and where Dawkins made such a statement or if this was a mere joke. I take the statement up simply on logicboy's advancement of it as some sort of refutation (even if comic or sarcastic) of the existence of the soul.

I have no idea if it is a joke, as you will see I mentioned that it must be, in one of my first posts on this thread.

But logicboy is clueless enough to imagine that which is contained in his OP to be a worthy argument against the existence of a soul.

At all events, I have previously expressed some of my trouble with Dawkin's reasoning in other respects cardinally on some of his arguments on the existence of God. I cannot begin to elucidate everything all over. Here -

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9184534

I'm not concerned with most of this, I'm addressing your assertions about intelligence which are frankly, silly. My concentration atm is spread thin, but the reply to your post has this:

kag: Don't be so arrogant as to presume you know anything about Dawkins. The problem, as I see it, is that many people on message boards are only aware of the Richard Dawkins as anti-religion wannabe "philosopher", not as the brilliant scientist he actually is. He's poor as a philosopher, but extremely erudite and insightful when it comes to biology and zoology.

Heck, even if one argued that dawkins isn't even a brilliant scientist, just ok, that won't make your comments any less asinine, yes? And I won't even call it a result of arrogance, just some sort of sheer *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*.

You're welcome to your opinions though, of course

turnstoner: I have looked at the op again and i can't understand which of these really got you going:

1. Lack of a brain or inability to be conscious = lack of soul
2. baby's placenta is a genetic twin of the baby

The two statements are consistent with the current state of science.

No, no, no. A scientist shouldn't think like a scientist

/sarcasm, as some people can't seem to tell

Deep Sight: I have not mentioned any reasons whatsoever: and I may choose not to. I am too old to spend my time spoon-feeding red eyed rabbits on things that are lamentably obvious.

Clap for yourself

Deep Sight: Please go and have a look at the OP again and tell me if there is any sense whatsoever contained in it. Tell me if it even remotely addresses itself to what in fact a soul is conceived as, and then tell me if the analogy made therein is not fit only for a classroom of dim-witted bovine recidivists, whose brains have been shriveled by centuries of hunger and congenital idiocy.

What's a "bovine recidivists", and no one lives for centuries, that's just silly. Oh you mean his ancestors?
That asides, I read the op, thank you. So dawkins was literal, or materialistic, or whatever armchair philosophers call it. That now translates to not intelligent, hmm?

turnstoner: Does he have a superior understanding of the why, the whence ... etc?

You said

turnstoner: Mr. Insults,your man has not told us why poster is st.ewpid! He's only been shouting himself hoax : st.ewpid, st.ewpid ....

He earlier said

deep sight: He is not just da.ft but outrightly re.tarded, even congenitally so. And so is anybody who regards him as intelligent.

And of course kindly confirmed it by adding

deep sight: Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Now, our hero might not have told us exactly why he thinks Dawkins is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, though that as well is disputable as he's given plenty hints at just how mor.onic his thinking is, but he's more or else told us why he thinks op is stoopid; because he thinks anyone who thinks Dawkins intelligent is *insert insult here, bold and colored for extra effects*, at least in the context of this discussion. I'm sure he has other reasons though.

turnstoner: Mr. Insults,your man has not told us why poster is st.ewpid! He's only been shouting himself hoax : st.ewpid, st.ewpid ....

He did tell, sort of, but his reasons are quite foo.lish

Atheist:-D:
Lol. I leave that mission for you and logicboy.

No it aint safe. But might as well give it a go while I can.

An obvious "be careful" is in order, even if just to satisfy social norms. You an amateur/pro photographer?

Ahh, off topic

Atheist:-D:
I am but not to do some nonsense praying. I am going for a good hike and plan to take some pics once I get to the peak.

I wil soon start the planning process.

Wish me luck

I am actually a bit disappoint. I thought the mission would involve you going to uncover or deal with those damned xtians and their super secret agenda to destroy the universe. Seems I will have to do it myself...

Good lucking brah. But I dey worry for 9ja. Is it safe?

Deep Sight: Yes, in addition to being a red eyed rabbit, dwindling away in a corner on account of the very appropriate burden of congenital foolishness.

Ok

Deep Sight: As it happens, kind sir, I am not here marketing anything, as you will do very well to note. The OP rather is very clearly marketing something, but it is not something that should be to the taste of any persons residing outside the walls of an asylum.

One does not have to be an expert on intelligence to read just a few words of Mr. Dawkins and that should be sufficient to observe the catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties.

A happy new year to you too.

Thanks!

I never said you were marketing $hit now, did I? I asked if you still market (or sell) $hit. Like for instance how you'd ask a friend if he still works in a bank, etc.

Anyways, interesting. You also think anyone who thinks him intelligent has " catastrophic, and as I said, possibly congenital retardation of his mental faculties. "?

Deep Sight: The point is that you cannot appeal to authority simply by pointing to the academic qualifications or achievements of a person in order to validate his intelligence on a subject outside his realm.

His deep evangelical atheistic fundamentalism leads him to make astonishingly foolish pronouncements all the time - one such being that contained in your OP - if he actually said that, that is. Perhaps its another one of your intensely foolish and egregiously da.ft jokes, because it is one of the most unintelligent things I have ever read in my life.



Yes, a biologist only. That alone does not qualify him re: the existence of God.

Although it is very sad that people like him should actually be in the greatest awe of God haven studied the grand complexity of biological life - and yet they come out - very foolishly, with the pedantic error that understanding the how of a matter obviates the whence, why and wherefore.

Not that the how is even well understood yet.

Not to speak of its origin - something that Dawkins has never addressed - and cannot address.

You see, wide eyed baby atheists like yourself may worship at the feet of academic nincompoops like Dawkins - not for me, thanks.



He is not just da.ft but outrightly re.tarded, even congenitally so. And so is anybody who regards him as intelligent.

Yes, and that includes members of University Councils - even in Oxford.



Bookmark away, baby Dawkins worshipper. As for you, no one needs to bookmark any thread. Every single post you make is sufficient evidence of the most advanced, very rampant, intense, well-settled and alarming idiocy. No offense bro.

How you doing oga deep sight? Happy new year? You still marketing $hit as chocolate? No offense.

Do you happen to be some sort of expert on intelligence?

Logicboy03: No probs! This is the last one

Eh, don't get me wrong brah, your prerogative clearly. My opinion is obviously of little importance.

If he were trolling and not genuinely the slave that puts his fellow slaves of his imaginary jewish mastah to shame, I'd consider him an excellent troll. Just seeing his nonsense can make me rage a bit. At least the vitriol aimed at him is sometimes amusing.

Can you pls stop giving anony and his nonsense attention? You do realize it's not worth the effort, at all?

Atheist:-D:
Lol. Cool. These mountains can be very dangerous.

I plan to conquer one in Nasarawa soo however.

How? You going on one of those missions? Why they call them missions anyways?

Isn't it puzzling how they say we aren't open minded?

maclatunji: James Bond is sold to the world as the "quintessential gentleman" . What does he do with women? Use and dump them. An actress is expected to feel honoured as a "Bond Girl". It's human nature but Islam curtails such excesses by guiding men and women on all matters including sex.

As for 72 virgins, considering the fact that Islam forbids fornication and adultery . Having pure spouses in paradise makes perfect sense.

It's you non-Muslims that are fixated on the issue. Whether it is one Houri or a million, the description of paradise is too expansive to be reduced to the issue of sex, it is a minute part.

You are jumping about looking for something that might stick. #Sorrycase

That's some heavy brain washing there. You avoid the main part of the post, completely, and focus on the sidenote (or did you not notice the '*'?). Then you accuse me of side stepping the issue?

YOU DIDN'T ADRESS THE MAIN ISSUE, IN ANY MANNER, IN YOUR POST

I'll just leave that in all caps and bold as you seem to somehow magically miss the main bits of posts*. Really, I'm nonplussed with regards as to how you expected to get away with that.

So, my would be escape artist, do you concede that islam condones, and in fact may indeed encourage, domestic violence or not?

Regardless of your response, do you find islam's stance acceptable? Why?



*note another asterix? While the houri is related to how you treat women, or your talking meat as you no doubt think of them, that clearly isn't the main focus here, no? and really, having 72 vir.gins in paradise makes plenty sense? Lol. What is it xtians say about carnal men?

Atheist:-D:
This is weird and scary. Are we sure this dude returned from the mountain safely? I am somewhat concerned . We might need to get the police involved to track him down.

He was around earlier today it seems. Really, I worry for the dude as well, heheheheheh

truthislight: rational i say.

In Genesis he discussed with Abraham as though they were equal.

Moses made suggestions to him that he accepted.

he will never destroy wicked people without first warning them.

Very reasonable to me I will say.

not when you were the source of a all good things that they had and even their life depended on their remaining connected to you, but their father cause you to leave him and his subsequent children.

That the father did not realise the result of his action does not mean you did not warn them.

If you unplug a fan from the power source the fan will stop running, Yahweh knew this an as such warned them(Adam and eve)

Yahweh is the source of life and knows that if Adam disobeyed him he will abandon him and this "unpluging" will result in his death and his subsequent upsprings.





not when you have an infinite capacity to fixe whatever situation the child is perfectly, you will not be so desperate but look for a permanent solution to the cause of the child pain.
See:

"Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which

"all"

that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of Judgement " (John 5:28-29).

And:

"And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." (Revelation 21:4).



he did not have a part in afflicting any thing.

"You can only take the cow to the stream you cannot force it to drink"

Adam chose another authority. So he allowed him to exercised his freewill just as he allowed angels in heaven exercise theirs.



and that is what he is doing by sending his son not minding the cost to him.



this rebellion is more than what you think.
He said that Yahweh is a liar.

Actually, satan started in heaven where he had caused 1/3 of the angels to rebel already.

The fruit was to help Adam not to cross the line like the Angels did.

Other faithful angels in heaven were watching the proceeding. To proof matters Yahweh allowed satan to proof his claims so that all will see who the liar and deceiver is.
and here we are, dying and suffering instead of "being like God". Now, Yahweh is justified to destroy.



i dont think so and i dont see that any where am afraid NO.



the passage of time was for satan to proof his claims and challenge.

We are all witnesses to how badly satan's claims have caused us.
Peace

Tired, so expect typos.

We've clearly reached what I like to call the LALALALALA stage.

Consider this, did adam's descendants ask to be born? Did any of us ask to be born? So now, created imperfectly as we are by him, we are just supposed to arbitrarily follow his whims or face eternal punishment? Do you know how that sounds?

Say we have a world class dog breeder, universally hailed as the best there is, and probably the best there ever will be. Supposing said breeder is looking to breed a perfect whatever breed but fails through no fault of the puppies. He then forces them to live in completely terrible, inhumane environments despite being the richest man in the universe because one of the parent dogs (which he bred as well) bit him. When a dog is about to die, he either brutally tortures it for the rest of time in his specially designed torture machine which keeps them alive but in constant pain, or he puts them in a hippie machine which keeps them happy for the rest of time. Did you notice that he is torturing the 'bad' dogs for his own failures, yes?

Now imagine that when the law finally catches on and is asking him why he treats them so, he explains that they broke laws of the house. Laws arbitrarily set up without input from anyone else, ie the rest of society, etc. Laws like prohibiting running on sabbath and eating shell fish, or he simply didn't like their parents. All these crimes he deemed punishable by death, he encouraged the other dogs to track down transgressors and beat them mercilessly until they were barely alive. They then deliver them to him so he could proceed to put them in his eternal torture machine. And these laws he didn't even bother to enforce or train into the dogs himself, he just left some vague clues then leaned back into his recliner and watched the dogs occasionally rape and eat themselves. To compound on this, he does not torture even the cannibalistic dogs if they eventually learn to answer his special whistle, he tortures all the others that do not learn this trick though, regardless of how good they might have been.

This is how crazy yahweh looks. And yes, do note, we are not dogs. We are sentient, so suffering comes with a little more baggage for us as we can reflect on it.

The bold again, he has unlimited capacity to fix the problem, then what is he waiting for? What you've been describing isn't the traditional omnipotent. What you describe goes to war and seems very afraid of losing, is this correct? So what is your definition of omnipotent

frosbel: please do not derail , it has been going well so far and promises to make for good debate and reading, thanks.

No vex. An a$$ is gonna be an a$$. I'll be off now

Ishilove: Hahaha, no wierdgraf, believe me when I say you don't want to get into a war of words with me; you so bloody don't.

Besides,this isn't the thread for that. I will deal with you another time, another thread.

Jerk.

Even I agree spoiling what has turned out to be an awesome thread will be bad taste, so I'll leave you for now. But really, the bolded? I went out of my way to state I was a d1ck, so much so you complained about my using the word, then you b1tch about being slighted by a 'jerk'? What the 4k did you expect? I told you I was an a$$ didn't I? Don't you think you're being a bit mo.ronic, hmmm?