Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

This is merely hate speech.

davien:
This is merely hate speech.

Hate of what?

sinequanon:


Hate of what?

For you,it would be that you have a hatred towards a select set of secular ideals and people...for no justified reason...

davien:
For you,it would be that you have a hatred towards a select set of secular ideals and people...for no justified reason...

Which set?

sinequanon:


Which set?

You've attacked Evilbrain1,plaetton and others because they could not conform to your ludicrous assertions and fallacies..

davien:
You've attacked Evilbrain1,plaetton and others because they could not conform to your ludicrous assertions and fallacies..

You sound like the angry and hateful one.

I challenge hypocrisy and stupidity. That is why you feel "attacked".

Stupidity: reading this thread https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance and deciding that Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Hypocrisy: reading the thread and pretending Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Hypocrisy: pretending my explanation was the same as Evilbrain1's.

Stupidity: showcasing your hypocrisy.

My challenge of stupidity and hypocrisy is not personal. If Evilbrain1 storms into a thread with "what the hell is wrong with you people?" followed by the most deranged belief I have come across on Nairaland, and then tries to cover it up with "I was trying to use humour", then he is setting himself up. All he has to do is think next time, before posting.

And when you come here defending him, you are setting yourself up to look stupid.

Don't blame me for challenging stupidity and hypocrisy.

plaetton is not even worth bothering with, and you are starting to get that way, too.

sinequanon:


You sound like the angry and hateful one.

I'm not the one personally attacking people...you are.

I challenge hypocrisy and stupidity. That is why you feel "attacked".

I personally do not feel attacked...I merely called you out on your hate speech.

Stupidity: reading this thread https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance and deciding that Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Instead of trying to rationalize or ask what he meant....you attacked it for not confirming to your pre-conclusions..

Hypocrisy: reading the thread and pretending Evilbrain1's explanation was sensible.

Evilbrain gave a rudimentary evolutionary hypothesis based on the facts that the more viable features propagate in a population they become the norm and if they provide a selective advantage or neutral net change to survive being selected against by the environment..

Hypocrisy: pretending my explanation was the same as Evilbrain1's.

I fail to understand what you mean by this...what explanation exactly did you give....and was it based on factual information?

Stupidity: showcasing your hypocrisy.

My challenge of stupidity and hypocrisy is not personal.

Yet you created a thread to showcase people who you perceive fall under it.

If Evilbrain1 storms into a thread with "what the hell is wrong with you people?"

That is a general statement....he later explained what he perceived isyour misconception of evolution.

followed by the most deranged belief I have come across on Nairaland, and then tries to cover it up with "I was trying to use humour", then he is setting himself up. All he has to do is think next time, before posting.

I myself could tell he was using humour to portray evolution..

And when you come here defending him, you are setting yourself up to look stupid.

You gave a hate speech and I called you out on it... whether you feel I look stupid by doing so is really not a concern to me...your beliefs however are.

Don't blame me for challenging stupidity and hypocrisy.

why didn't you educate that "stupidity" on that thread...but created a new one to favour your view of who you'd call "fools".?

plaetton is not even worth bothering with, and you are starting to get that way, too.

Am I supposed to be offended by that?...because I really don't need to know who you'd bother talking to.

No one is more surprised by the vacuous ramblings of this op.
Thread after thread this fellow has failed to make a meaning argument for anything.

Silly statement after statement clearly highlight that even this op does not understand what atheism is, despite having repeated it a million times on this forum.
Isn't the person who does not believe in something the one most competent to know what he does not believe

How can any slowpoke repeatedly come on here to tell and define for me what I believe and what I do not

It never siezes to amaze me that ignorant folks come here insisting that not believing in god is a philosophical proposition that I must defend or else..

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

Perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary to check the meaning of Atheist. The knowing that there is no being responsible for nature, volcanic eruptions, rain, tsunamis etc. It is STUPID to think atheism is a religion when it is only based on evidence. But religion wants us to believe a no evidence being created the universe, but failed to present evidence.

Atheists don't spend their whole life going against religion, they only have to share a planet, homes, environment with worthless fools who try to force their beliefs down our throats. Do we lay low and accept all the contaminated information they want to spoon-feed us with?

The idea that Atheists don't have a moral ground is wrong. After all it took normal humans to know slavery (encouraged by the bible, Koran) is wrong. It took normal humans to know burning witches at the stake is morally wrong. How many Christians can boldly say they will follow the laws of the Bible and therefore stone their kids to death or send their mensuration daughters to the wilderness because they are unclean. Those are morals we frown at and will never tolerate because we are INTELLIGENT ATHIESTS.

Does the Op believe scaring young kids with hell fire or showing them crucifix of a dying man is morally right? Think well!

ifeness:


Perhaps you need to pick up a dictionary to check the meaning of Atheist. The knowing that there is no being responsible for nature, volcanic eruptions, rain, tsunamis etc. It is STUPID to think atheism is a religion when it is only based on evidence. But religion wants us to believe a no evidence being created the universe, but failed to present evidence.

Atheists don't spend their whole life going against religion, they only have to share a planet, homes, environment with worthless fools who try to force their beliefs down our throats. Do we lay low and accept all the contaminated information they want to spoon-feed us with?

The idea that Atheists don't have a moral ground is wrong. After all it took normal humans to know slavery (encouraged by the bible, Koran) is wrong. It took normal humans to know burning witches at the stake is morally wrong. How many Christians can boldly say they will follow the laws of the Bible and therefore stone their kids to death or send their mensuration daughters to the wilderness because they are unclean. Those are morals we frown at and will never tolerate because we are INTELLIGENT ATHIESTS.

More logic....moral ground...slavery....where did that come from...and what has it got to do with my point...except PROVE ONCE AGAIN THAT YOUR ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM IS BASED ON RELIGION. Other people's crap is not support for your outlook. It should stand on its own merit.

Go and read the thread I referenced, where I predicted the foolishness that so-called atheists would contribute. They accepted the most deranged explanation for something and are now fooling themselves that it was a joke. That is stupidity and hypocrisy combined, as I said.

Myself, I don't need all that foolishness and hypocrisy in order to reject religion and god. The reason some people need hypocrisy, stupidity, spin etc. is because deep down they are insecure and are suppressing tendencies towards religion. That is why I say they are being controlled by religion.

sinequanon:


More logic....moral ground...slavery....where did that come from...and what has it got to do with my point...except PROVE ONCE AGAIN THAT YOUR ARGUMENT FOR ATHEISM IS BASED ON RELIGION. Other people's crap is not support for your outlook. It should stand on its own merit.

Go and read the thread I referenced, where I predicted the foolishness that so-called atheists would contribute. They accepted the most deranged explanation for something and are now fooling themselves that it was a joke. That is stupidity and hypocrisy combined, as I said.

Myself, I don't need all that foolishness and hypocrisy in order to reject religion and god. The reason some people need hypocrisy, stupidity, spin etc. is because deep down they are insecure and are suppressing tendencies towards religion. That is why I say they are being controlled by religion.

I stated facts not logic. You know there is nothing positive contributed to our daily lives by religion. You just need someone like you do debate unintelligently with. GOODLUCK WITH THAT!

ifeness:
You just need someone like you do debate unintelligently with.

Meaningless.

ifeness:
GOODLUCK WITH THAT!

Nope. Sorry, no luck, you'll have to rewrite the gibberish.

sinequanon:


Meaningless.



Nope. Sorry, no luck, you'll have to rewrite the gibberish.

Your thread is meaningless, you will be lucky to get more posts. You are better off engaging your imaginary god with your pointless thread.

Another example...

https://www.nairaland.com/2017963/evolution-eye

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

It is not unexpected that atheism is centred around the non existence of deities and in the Western dominated world - God. That is what atheism is, the denial of the existence of deities and God. There is an element of truth in every theory that excludes the mention of God. To me, it is true to a certain degree.

Considering your grievance against the theory of natural selection, it is perfectly natural for atheists and all anti supernaturalists to be convinced by the theory. The theory is not perfect but probably the most revolutionary scientific theory after Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system. It clashes perfectly with religions, that is what atheists like.

Now to your question, the question is a prospective one. And one that should be answered prospectively. Biodiversity is the hallmark of evolution, and we (not me exactly) come across thousands of species with their own uniqueness. It is possible there are species probably in the bottom of the ocean with infrared visions. Or in the future, more species will have them. Even more, alien species could have them and might have them.

For God so loved the world(humanity including atheists) that He gave His only begotten Son(Jesus) that whosoever (atheists inclusive) believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. In the time of ignorance God overlooked but now commandeth all men to repent. For what shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his never dying soul? Think about this!

sinequanon:
Most (not all) atheists base their judgement of facts on their opposition to religion, not on direct sense.

I think it is safe to now state the BASIC LAW OF ATHEISM...

[size=18pt]A THEORY IS TRUE IF IT AVOIDS INVOLVING GOD.[/size]

Therefore their outlook revolves around god.

Please refer to this thread for an example: https://www.nairaland.com/2016501/evolution-seagull-dance

....where one atheist after the next was lining up to accept the most ludicrous theory on the sole basis that it didn't involve a god.

If their whole outlook is based on similar stupidity, what then is atheism?

And, it they all succumb to hypocritical excuses afterwards, what then is atheism?

If there is such a thing as an intelligent atheist, can one please step forward and rescue his belief from the pounding it took on the other thread.

(I await more blundering fools to enter thread...)

This is so lame and daft.

mccloud224:


This is so lame and daft.

If you are talking about the behaviour of such atheists, then I agree.

plaetton:
No one is more surprised by the vacuous ramblings of this op.
Thread after thread this fellow has failed to make a meaning argument for anything.

Silly statement after statement clearly highlight that even this op does not understand what atheism is, despite having repeated it a million times on this forum.
Isn't the person who does not believe in something the one most competent to know what he does not believe

How can any slowpoke repeated come on here to tell and define for me what I believe and what I do not

It never siezes to amaze me that ignorant folks come here insisting that not believing in god is a philosophical proposition that I must defend or else..

Calm down, man. He has a point.

I followed the thread he is referring to and the clueless and hypocritical responses didn't surprise me. I have had a first hand experience. Worse still when one of you brought the overrated Dawkins into the thing.

I have always wondered same thing. From the days of logicboy, the clueless age of onetrack, to present day atheist who accuses Religion for being the African problem, even though it has always been a thing Africans practiced.

Africans have always had spirituality but religion is new.

Kay17:


It is not unexpected that atheism is centred around the non existence of deities and in the Western dominated world - God. That is what atheism is, the denial of the existence of deities and God. There is an element of truth in every theory that excludes the mention of God. To me, it is true to a certain degree.

Considering your grievance against the theory of natural selection, it is perfectly natural for atheists and all anti supernaturalists to be convinced by the theory. The theory is not perfect but probably the most revolutionary scientific theory after Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system. It clashes perfectly with religions, that is what atheists like.

Now to your question, the question is a prospective one. And one that should be answered prospectively. Biodiversity is the hallmark of evolution, and we (not me exactly) come across thousands of species with their own uniqueness. It is possible there are species probably in the bottom of the ocean with infrared visions. Or in the future, more species will have them. Even more, alien species could have them and might have them.

that there (in highlights) is the sole reason atheists love and support the ToE. That laughable stuff about it being the most revolutionary scientific theory since Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system? Hilarious nonsense. What about the theory of DNA structure that revolutionized medicine and how we understand genetics?

davidylan:


that there (in highlights) is the sole reason atheists love and support the ToE. That laughable stuff about it being the most revolutionary scientific theory since Galileo's heliocentric model of our solar system? Hilarious nonsense. What about the theory of DNA structure that revolutionized medicine and how we understand genetics?

Almost all scientific recoveries are revolutionary, hence I carefully used the word 'probably'.

Op who stole your biscuit? Hating on atheists won't make any difference and it only shows how insecure you are about your own beliefs because others don't agree with u

By the way we have animals that have brain touch and I don't see what's ridiculous about the example evilbrain1 gave,a set of Rottweilers do have brain touch ask seun he is into dogs,Sinequanon saying that evilbrain1 example was ridiculous because he mentioned "brain touch" shows you lack some knowledge about animal behavior that you claim to study. Go to the pet section and learn more,the more you know the more you realise how little you know,Mr know it all.

Kay17:


Almost all scientific recoveries are revolutionary, hence I carefully used the word 'probably'.

Hardly any scientific "discoveries" are revolutionary. (Unless you really meant "recoveries", in which case I don't know what you mean)

Usually, the technology comes first (often by accident or trial and error), then the science steps in to try to explain it. Then there is a long backwards and forwards between engineer and scientist to refine the technology.

Even technological discoveries are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

^^^
Word salad a la carte.
Lol.

plaetton:
^^^
Word salad a la carte.
Lol.

Funny

Dapo777:
By the way we have animals that have brain touch and I don't see what's ridiculous about the example evilbrain1 gave,a set of Rottweilers do have brain touch ask seun he is into dogs,Sinequanon saying that evilbrain1 example was ridiculous because he mentioned "brain touch" shows you lack some knowledge about animal behavior that you claim to study. Go to the pet section and learn more,the more you know the more you realise how little you know,Mr know it all.

This was Evilbrain1's two-faced response...

EvilBrain1:


Okay then, I confess. I wasn't using humour. Everything I said was completely serious and boring and straightlaced including the bird babies with brain touch, the tap dancing seagulls....

If you believe in a line of "brain touched" tap-dancing seagulls, that is your problem. We can agree to disagree. It is the dumbest thing I have heard in evolution theory.

If you can't see through Evilbrain1's two-faced reply, quoted above, that is your problem. We can agree to disagree.

sinequanon:


This was Evilbrain1's two-faced response...



If you believe in a line of "brain touched" tap-dancing seagulls, that is your problem. We can agree to disagree. It is the dumbest thing I have heard in evolution theory.

If you can't see through Evilbrain1's two-faced reply, quoted above, that is your problem. We can agree to disagree.

He could be serious and he could also be exergerrating, but at first I didn't take him seriously when he mentioned brain touch,I took it as him trying to emphasize a point with humour,guy chillax it's not everything everyone says on nairaland that is serious,some people can be sarcastic and when you insisted that he was serious about the braintouch ish, he had to silent you by agreeing that he was serious,again out of sarcasm,it happens when someone uses sarcasm and you don't get it,the person would use sarcasm again (saying he was serious about the sarcastic claim) So you might see how funny you are for not seeing the sarcasm in the braintouch he mentioned. Don't be too serious guy

sinequanon:


Hardly any scientific "discoveries" are revolutionary. (Unless you really meant "recoveries", in which case I don't know what you mean)

Usually, the technology comes first (often by accident or trial and error), then the science steps in to try to explain it. Then there is a long backwards and forwards between engineer and scientist to refine the technology.

Even technological discoveries are not revolutionary, but evolutionary.

Oh yes, I meant "discoveries".

How then is the technology made in the absence of ready made concepts and theories in the mind of the engineer?

Dapo777:


He could be serious and he could also be exergerrating, but at first I didn't take him seriously when he mentioned brain touch,I took it as him trying to emphasize a point with humour,guy [size=18pt]chillax it's not everything everyone says on nairaland that is serious[/size],some people can be sarcastic and when you insisted that he was serious about the braintouch ish, he had to silent you by agreeing that he was serious,again out of sarcasm,it happens when someone uses sarcasm and you don't get it,the person would use sarcasm again (saying he was serious about the sarcastic claim) So you might see how funny you are for not seeing the sarcasm in the braintouch he mentioned.

Humour is fine, but it cannot double as a logical argument.

It is obvious that he is creating wiggle room because his argument is weak.

You STILL don't know what he is claiming to be fact, and what is sarcasm. So how can you debate with him?

This is just a way of being able to revise and obfuscate his assertions according to the replies.

Done persistently, it is called trolling.

Dapo777:
Don't be too serious guy

You can appeal to emotion, but the fact is LOGIC IS serious, dude.

You have to take your pick and not pretend to be talking science when you are not.

I don't mind jokes, sarcasm, insults etc.

But they have to be separate from the logic, otherwise the discussion becomes illogical and pointless.