Saw this on my timeline on fb

Ten Steps to convert an atheist to a christian.

1. First of all, know what is atheism and who an atheist is. If you ask me which God do I worship as an atheist, I will automatically label you a fool.

2. I am a human being just like you. You are not better than me.

3. You CANT use the bible to convert an atheist. So just stop all those quoting of the Bible. It is a big turn off. Most people consider a book that endorsed slavery as lame so using it as a yardstick is lame too.

4. Hell fire If there is Hell fire, I will gladly step in and shake hands with Thomas Edison (No I wont! I rather hug Kim Kardashian than shake hands with old Thomas). Trust me, Hell fire doesn't scare Atheist and Reasonable people. I know you are still a Christian not because you really want to go to heaven but because you don't want to go hell (Judging from the horrible picture of Hell fire painted by scared people too.)

5. How is Christianity different from thousands of other religion?? No don't quote the bible here (see, I told you before not everybody fancies KJV Bible). Maybe you should read about the origin of major christian beliefs. You probably will get scared.

6. Yeah go ahead and pray for me. Maybe one day God will answer your prayers but till then, I am still an atheist. Heed to my advice, prayer is funny to atheist.

7. Know the basics. Learn ordinary Biology, and simple geography (you cant stand on a mountain and see all the kingdom of the earth).Study Abiogenesis, Evolution, history, Maths (Yeah who told you 2 people (Adam and Eve) can give birth to 10 billion people in 6,000 years.) Go and study maths, dumbo!

7. Blame Game! Just because things are hard for me doesn't mean it happened because I am an unbeliever. Don't play that card, it sucks.

8. Apart from hellfire, what else will happen to me if I don't become a Christian?

9. Don't speak for God. It is so annoying how God will send people I don't like to tell me how much he likes me. If virgin Mary likes me, she should come pay me a visit and we can talk about it through out the night. (In other thought, I really don't like virgins, especially those that have been used by the creator of the universe)

10. Think before you speak. I am tired of face palms. Do you know how you sound when you say God created me? It is an insult to my father's libido.

Link: atheist network facebook page

Mission impossible

U didn't mention any way!

This should be titled, what u shouldn't do and wjat u should do when trying to convert an atheist

dbest01:
U didn't mention any way!

This should be titled, what u shouldn't do and wjat u should do when trying to convert an atheist

He just told you that you can't convert an atheist with anything related to the bible.Since no Christian today can say anything without reference to it,it means an atheist can't be drawn back to believe those childish silly bible stories..Capische?

Peterken05:
7. Know the basics. Learn ordinary Biology, and simple geography (you cant stand on a mountain and see all the kingdom of the earth).Study Abiogenesis, Evolution, history, Maths (Yeah who told you 2 people (Adam and Eve) can give birth to 10 billion people in 6,000 years.) Go and study maths, [size=18pt]dumbo![/size]

LOL! Another enraged, ranting and terrified atheist.

btw, clever clogs, 6000 years is over 200 generations. If each family had 4 children surviving to have offspring, they could potentially generate over 2^200 children in 6000 years.

That would be over [size=14pt]1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size] children.

3 children per family could potentially yield..

[size=14pt]100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 children[/size]

Over to you, with your "maths"...

sinequanon:


LOL! Another enraged, ranting and terrified atheist.

btw, clever clogs, 6000 years is over 200 generations. If each family had 4 children surviving to have offspring, they could potentially generate over 2^200 children in 6000 years.

That would be over [size=14pt]1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size] children.

3 children per family could potentially yield..

[size=14pt]100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 children[/size]

Over to you, with your "maths"...

And where do genocidal wars factor into this math?

plaetton:

And where do genocidal wars factor into this math?

Why are you asking me this question?

Put it to the OP. I am not the one who implies that you can "do the math dumbo".

The reason for my post is to estimate a maximum so that the OP can tell us what else he "factored in" and how he has done it to arrive at his typically rhetorical and vague question/implication.

You keep talking about your respect of science. But the rhetorical way you debate is totally unscientific. Scientists are supposed to talk straight.

e.g I estimate that the human population today would be no more than X because (insert calculation)/(insert citation). This number is far smaller than 10 billion... (Then, if it pleases you, you can start crowing about people being dumb.)

But as it stands, he appears to be the ignorant one.

sinequanon:


LOL! Another enraged, ranting and terrified atheist.

btw, clever clogs, 6000 years is over 200 generations. If each family had 4 children surviving to have offspring, they could potentially generate over 2^200 children in 6000 years.

That would be over [size=14pt]1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size] children.

3 children per family could potentially yield..

[size=14pt]100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 children[/size]

Over to you, with your "maths"...

So what you are now saying is that people only give birth without anyone dying?

What about diseases outbreak?

What about natural disasters?

So you are saying only 2 people gave birth to different races we have today? Negroids? Mongoloids? Caucasians?

The bible didn't even mention blacks or asians

And dumbo, what the post meant was simply that human can't evolve within the time frame of 6000 years looking at the variations.

sinequanon:


Why are you asking me this question?

Put it to the OP. I am not the one who implies that you can "do the math dumbo".

The reason for my post is to estimate a maximum so that the OP can tell us what else he "factored in" and how he has done it to arrive at his typically rhetorical and vague question/implication.

You keep talking about your respect of science. But the rhetorical way you debate is totally unscientific. Scientists are supposed to talk straight.

e.g I estimate that the human population today would be no more than X because (insert calculation)/(insert citation). This number is far smaller than 10 billion... (Then, if it pleases you, you can start crowing about people being dumb.)

But as it stands, he appears to be the ignorant one.

Pls read no7 again, biology, geography e.t.c was mentioined not only maths, include other factors and you'd see that your maths is totally flawed

Peterken05:


So what you are now saying is that people only give birth without anyone dying?

What an illiterate, you are.

Peterken05:
What about diseases outbreak?

What about natural disasters?

[size=14pt]DUMBO![/size]

You have lost track of your own stupidity. LOL!

Why are you asking these question? You are the i.diot who claims to have done the maths that reduces the figures. I only estimated a maximum possible.

So show us your "maths".

[size=18pt]FOOL![/size]

LOL!

Peterken05:


Pls read no7 again, biology, geography e.t.c was mentioined not only maths, include other factors and you'd see that your maths is totally flawed

I.diot. So you think the factors raise the maximum possible? Or don't you understand what a "maximum possible" means?

You are the one who has to bring figures down.

Show us your so-called "maths", and stop waffling.

if it is peter who posted this,it is an atheist propaganda in disguise.........that boy........even believing in God for the sake of believing seems to suck every oxygen outta his lungs......besides this is the 21st century and every one is cool with minding their own business......and unless you are ready to yield,even the most comprehensive sermon cannot displace your beliefs..........as for me,my faith of God is unshakable........believe what you want......we all are still right....somehow

sinequanon:


What an illiterate, you are.



[size=14pt]DUMBO![/size]

You have lost track of your own stupidity. LOL!

Why are you asking these question? You are the i.diot who claims to have done the maths that reduces the figures. I only estimated a maximum possible.

So show us your "maths".

[size=18pt]FOOL![/size]

LOL!

I'm asking you the question because you fail to understand a simple post

I'm not suprise by your ad hominems, it shows how you intelligent you really are

Peterken05:
I'm asking you the question because you fail to understand a simple post

I'm not suprise by your ad hominems, it shows how you intelligent you really are

You are a hypocrite, as well.

Didn't you use the word "dumbo" in your OP? OK, now deal with it.

Now, stop jumping about, and show us your "maths".

Peterken05:
7. Know the basics. Learn ordinary Biology, and simple geography (you cant stand on a mountain and see all the kingdom of the earth).Study Abiogenesis, Evolution, history, Maths (Yeah who told you 2 people (Adam and Eve) can give birth to 10 billion people in 6,000 years.) Go and study maths, dumbo!

Show us the mathematics.

There is no mathematics. There is not nearly enough information about "geography", "disease" and "conflict" to know whether a potential trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion offspring could reduce to what? less than 10 billion?

Duh! 10 billion could EASILY be accounted for in 6000 years. But your IGNORANCE of mathematics meant that you don't understand exponential growth of populations.

The irony is that you are calling other folk dumb! LOL!

sinequanon:


I.diot. So you think the factors raise the maximum possible? Or don't you understand what a "maximum possible" means?

You are the one who has to bring figures down.

Show us your so-called "maths", and stop waffling.

Who said something about the factors raising the maximum possible,
If 2 people gave birth to 2 sons as the bible literarily claimed (don't talk to me about one theology rubbish), you would agree with me that eve would have bleeped her sons (that is incest) which has a lot of negative effects medically. For example

Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce.

That is if by any chance you have a little knowledge of biology.

So tell me how they would have multiplied or survived or evolved?

sinequanon:


You are a hypocrite, as well.

Didn't you use the word "dumbo" in your OP? OK, now deal with it.

Now, stop jumping about, and show us your "maths".



Show us the mathematics.

There is no mathematics. There is not nearly enough information about "geography", "disease" and "conflict" to know whether a potential trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion offspring could reduce to what? less than 10 billion?

Duh! 10 billion could EASILY be accounted for in 6000 years. But your IGNORANCE of mathematics meant that you don't understand exponential growth of populations.

The irony is that you are calling other folk dumb! LOL!

Really?


I think have answered you,


Study history, biology before doing any maths

Peterken05:


Who said something about the factors raising the maximum possible,
If 2 people gave birth to 2 sons as the bible literarily claimed (don't talk to me about one theology rubbish), you would agree with me that eve would have bleeped her sons (that is incest) which has a lot of negative effects medically. For example

Inbreeding results in homozygosity, which can increase the chances of offspring being affected by recessive or deleterious traits. This generally leads to a decreased biological fitness of a population (called inbreeding depression), which is its ability to survive and reproduce.

That is if by any chance you have a little knowledge of biology.

So tell me how they would have multiplied or survived or evolved?

Oh, so now we have moved from "two people" and "geography" and "conflict" to version 2 of your hypocrisy.

Now we are talking about homozygosity because "eve would have fvcked her sons".

Still we have no maths from you. What figure have you calculated that is less than 10 billion. Show us how.

How did you factor in your homozygosity. We are waiting for you to stop yapping, and to show us your maths.

And by the way, there is no direct link between inbreeding and population depression. This is a bad misunderstanding. Many species reproduce asexually and are successful. There is no mathematical model that could predict that success of 6000 years.

sinequanon:


Oh, so now we have moved from "two people" and "geography" and "conflict" to version 2 of your hypocrisy.

Now we are talking about homozygosity because "eve would have fvcked her sons".

Still we have no maths from you. What figure have you calculated that is less than 10 billion. Show us how.

How did you factor in your homozygosity. We are waiting for you to stop yapping, and to show us your maths.

And by the way, there is no direct link between inbreeding and population depression. This is a bad misunderstanding. Many species reproduce asexually and are successful. There is no mathematical model that could predict that success of 6000 years.

Look at you, you don't even know the differences between asexual reproduction and inbreeding,

You re asking how I factor in my homozygosity? We re talking about population which means we are talking about reproduction, reproduction is a subject of biology which involves genetics(hereditary traits).

homozygotes or pure lines are individuals with identical alleles

There is no hypocrisy, you just don't understand no7.
Maybe you should read it again.

There is no maths or calculation and I didn't told you I made one, it is just a statement, maybe you should read no7 again.

We can't calculate anytin when we can't answer simple questions about biology, history, geography, abiogenesis.

You can't claim that adam and eve are caucasians and they gave birth to black and asians, that's a question of biology before doing any maths


Stop arguing like that. Follow the rules

This is simple logic. Reason logically

Peterken05:



Look at you, you don't even know the differences between asexual reproduction and inbreeding,

Duh! I am talking about asexual reproduction guaranteeing homozygosity at every locus.

It is a worse case scenario than inbreeding, which creates only higher chance of homozygosity at some loci.

Yet asexual reproduction supports successful species.

Clearly, you are out of your depth in biology, too, LOL!

Peterken05:
You re asking how I factor in my homozygosity? We re talking about population which means we are talking about reproduction, reproduction is a subject of biology which involves genetics(hereditary traits).

homozygotes or pure lines are individuals with identical alleles

Stop babbling. You clearly didn't even understand the simple worse case scenario of homozygosity in asexual reproduction, so you are in no position to lecture anybody on the "subject of biology", LOL!

Peterken05:
There is no hypocrisy, you just don't understand no7.
Maybe you should read it again.

There is no maths or calculation and I didn't told you I made one, it is just a statement, maybe you should read no7 again.

Your OP clearly starts out by insulting everyone who may disagree with you. You say, "Go and study maths, dumbo!"

So, I am asking you to stop being a hypocrite, and tell us what maths you have in mind regarding 10 billion people in 6000 years.

You are not fooling anybody with your hypocrisy and trying to shift the angle.

You clearly thought that it must "obviously" take longer than 6000 years to produce 10 billion people. Now you are backtracking, after I told you that there is NO maths that rules 6000 years in or out on this basis. Now you can see that you are the one who is dumb! Don't call people dumbos and then start complaining about rules.

Christians and Muslims are also Atheists but they can't figure it out. If Allah is the real God, then Christians are out of luck because they don't believe in God. If you are a Muslim and Budhist God is the real God, then you are an atheist because you don't believe in God. Atheist just believe in one less God than theists

It seems to me that no meaningful distinction exists between getting the God wrong but believing in something and getting the God wrong but not believing in anything.

[quote author=sinequanon post=29319943]

Duh! I am talking about asexual reproduction guaranteeing homozygosity at every locus.

It is a worse case scenario than inbreeding, which creates only higher chance of homozygosity at some loci.

Yet asexual reproduction supports successful species.

as much as i dont like to call you dumb, you've proven to be quite foolish too.

lemme lecture you about asexual reproduction in humans since we are talking about humans (mammals) not plants

Asexual reproduction, or having progeny without requiring a sexual partner, is naturally impossible with humans- we can only reproduce with a mate.

Although we can create copies of organisms, hypothetically including ourselves, through cloning, this is an intensive scientific process and not how asexual reproduction is defined biologically.

and dont forget we are talking about adam and eve that your so called god made (put that in mind)

Some sharks and reptiles have been found to reproduce asexually, but this has never occurred in in the mammalian kingdom, let alone humans.

Clearly, you are out of your depth in biology, too, LOL!

i see no reason why you should laughing or 'loling' because a 10 year old who vast is in biology would know that

Stop babbling. You clearly didn't even understand the simple worse case scenario of homozygosity in asexual reproduction, so you are in no position to lecture anybody on the "subject of biology", LOL!

i know asexuality enforces homozygosity at all loci, you dont need to tell me that,
Asexuality or parthenogenesis has evolved many times and the cytological mechanisms to restore the parental chromosome number can vary between and even within species. In automictic or meiotic parthenogenesis, meiosis takes place but the chromosomal constitution of the mother is restored through one or several different mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms enforce homozygosity at all loci while some other mechanisms pass the genome of the mother intact to the offspring.
In apomictic or mitotic parthenogenesis the eggs are formed through what is essentially a set of mitoses
polyploidy (if you understand the term) is in general incompatible with chromosomal sex determination and is a rare condition in animals. However, many asexual and hermaphroditic forms are polyploid to various degrees

Your OP clearly starts out by insulting everyone who may disagree with you. You say, "Go and study maths, dumbo!"

i can see thats your problem, deal with it

So, I am asking you to stop being a hypocrite, and tell us what maths you have in mind regarding 10 billion people in 6000 years.

You are not fooling anybody with your hypocrisy and trying to shift the angle.

You clearly thought that it must "obviously" take longer than 6000 years to produce 10 billion people. Now you are backtracking, after I told you that there is NO maths that rules 6000 years in or out on this basis. Now you can see that you are the one who is dumb! Don't call people dumbos and then start complaining about rules.

who is backtracking? i'm just telling if you wanna argue, argue the right way

alexis007:
if it is peter who posted this,it is an atheist propaganda in disguise.........that boy........even believing in God for the sake of believing seems to suck every oxygen outta his lungs......besides this is the 21st century and every one is cool with minding their own business......and unless you are ready to yield,even the most comprehensive sermon cannot displace your beliefs..........as for me,my faith of God is unshakable........believe what you want......we all are still right....somehow

alexis007, you are here again

Peterken05:
i know asexuality enforces homozygosity at all loci, you dont need to tell me that,
Asexuality or parthenogenesis has evolved many times and the cytological mechanisms to restore the parental chromosome number can vary between and even within species. In automictic or meiotic parthenogenesis, meiosis takes place but the chromosomal constitution of the mother is restored through one or several different mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms enforce homozygosity at all loci while some other mechanisms pass the genome of the mother intact to the offspring.
In apomictic or mitotic parthenogenesis the eggs are formed through what is essentially a set of mitoses
polyploidy (if you understand the term) is in general incompatible with chromosomal sex determination and[b] is a rare condition in animals[/b]. However, many asexual and hermaphroditic forms are polyploid to various degrees

Stop simply cutting and pasting, you dum.wit. You are clearly out of your depth and have no idea of what you are talking about.

You are only making yourself look more and more of a hypocrite.

And your next piece of hypocritical nonsense is the old "I didn't say it wasn't a cut and paste".

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-90-481-2770-2_4#page-1

[size=16pt]Chapter 4
Cytology of Asexual Animals[/size]

[size=14pt]Abstract[/size]
We review the cytological mechanisms underlying asexual reproduction, i.e. reproduction without fertilization, in animals. Asexuality or parthenogenesis has evolved many times and the cytological mechanisms to restore the parental chromosome number can vary between and even within species. In automictic or meiotic parthenogenesis, meiosis takes place but the chromosomal constitution of the mother is restored through one or several different mechanisms. Some of these mechanisms enforce homozygosity at all loci while some other mechanisms pass the genome of the mother intact to the offspring. In apomictic or mitotic parthenogenesis the eggs are formed through what is essentially a set of mitoses. Polyploidy, is in general incompatible with chromosomal sex determination and is a rare condition in animals. However, many asexual and hermaphroditic forms are polyploid to various degrees. Polyploidy is divided into allo- and autopolyploidy. In the former mode the chromosome sets are derived from two or more different species while in autopolyploidy the multiplication has taken place within one species. We discuss the evolutionary consequences of the different cytological mechanisms involved in asexual reproduction.

And,, btw., since you are so stupid and dishonest (too stupid to realize how stupid you are and how obvious it is that you must have cut and paste that description), I am wasting no more time with you. Bye!

By the way, I should add for anybody following the nonsense that Peterken05 was spewing, that his original point was about homozygosity restricting population growth. Reasons given in the literature are not restricted to the "animal kingdom". He brought that in as a total red herring.

Species with 100% homozygosity can be successful, and there are many examples. So a purported one-off case of i.ncest in humans is a ridiculous explanation for restriction in human population. it would pale into absolute insignificance against other factors.

Peterken05:
Ten Steps to convert an atheist to a christian.

7. Know the basics. Learn ordinary Biology, and simple geography (you cant stand on a mountain and see all the kingdom of the earth).Study Abiogenesis, Evolution, history, Maths (Yeah who told you 2 people (Adam and Eve) can give birth to 10 billion people in 6,000 years.) Go and study maths, [size=18pt]dumbo![/size]

What about the Great Flood? Noah's three sons and their wives?

Your maths seems to be the BEST the world has ever seen, even better than Professor Dele Awojobi when he calculated 19 2/3rd for the politicians.

sinequanon:


LOL! Another enraged, ranting and terrified atheist.

btw, clever clogs, 6000 years is over 200 generations. If each family had 4 children surviving to have offspring, they could potentially generate over 2^200 children in 6000 years.

That would be over [size=14pt]1000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000[/size] children.

3 children per family could potentially yield..

[size=14pt]100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 children[/size]

Over to you, with your "maths"...

Why do you think Atheists are terrified people? There is something called reverse psychology; i think you are applying this to your situation whereby you are trying to project your fears to other people. The reason you claim to believe in your imaginary god is only because of the FEAR you have for the ridiculous hell-fire.

plaetton:

And where do genocidal wars factor into this math?

...and natural disasters and plagues too? These religious zealots will not stop being funny.

Oduduwaboy:

Why do you think Atheists are terrified people? There is something called reverse psychology; i think you are applying this to your situation whereby you are trying to project your fears to other people. The reason you claim to believe in your imaginary god is only because of the FEAR you have for the ridiculous hell-fire.

OK. Let's try the reverse psychology one more time.

Assuming his fears are unfounded, what would he have lost?
Assuming his fears are true, what would he have gained?

Assuming his fears are true, what would YOU have lost?

Oduduwaboy:

...and natural disasters and plagues too? These religious zealots will not stop being funny.

Ever thought of single families (one man and one woman/many wives) having several children in many communities around the world, too?

Go and study maths, [size=18pt]dumbo![/size]

Oduduwaboy:

Why do you think Atheists are terrified people? There is something called reverse psychology; i think you are applying this to your situation whereby you are trying to project your fears to other people. The reason you claim to believe in your imaginary god is only because of the FEAR you have for the ridiculous hell-fire.

The level of literacy on this forum is shameful. Learn to read intelligently.

Now, what I am remarking on is the psychology of the majority of atheists I have come across. The simple folk give themselves away. (It is possible that they are just the vocal ones, and most of the unafraid ones keep quiet.)

Psychology

Let us take as an example of agoraphobia -- fear of open spaces or crowds. I will assume that you do not have agoraphobia.

How often to you blog or write about how unafraid you are of open spaces or crowds? Probably never.

If someone who suffered from agoraphobia told you how scary the outside world is, would you rush outside, start dancing around to show everyone that you are not scared? Highly unlikely.

Why? Because people who are not afraid don't feel that they have anything to prove.

Now, take somebody who has taken therapy for agoraphobia. If you tell them how scary open spaces are, they are the ones who may need to prove to you and, more importantly, themselves that they can cope.

That's it. I am merely observing this simple psychology in many atheists.

Peterken05:
4. Hell fire If there is Hell fire, I will gladly step in and shake hands with Thomas Edison (No I wont! I rather hug Kim Kardashian than shake hands with old Thomas). Trust me, Hell fire doesn't scare Atheist and Reasonable people. I know you are still a Christian not because you really want to go to heaven but because you don't want to go hell (Judging from the horrible picture of Hell fire painted by scared people too.)

Think about why he wrote the above. Why the confused emoticon? The concept itself isn't difficult.

And what sense does it make to be talking about "if there is hell fire"?

What sense does it make to talk about "gladly stepping in" etc.

This is the psychology of bravado to hide doubt.

If you (so-called atheists) are not afraid - very afraid - of HELL, why make your important subject to debate and argue?
MORE IMPORTANTLY,
If you (so-called atheists) are not afraid - very afraid - of GOD, why make your MOST important subject to debate and argue?

The vast majority of the teachings/preaching in Christianity is not Hell Fire, it is living like Jesus.
What is *your* (so-called atheists) most important topic, is not a debate of [size=14pt]Why There Is No God?[/size]

FEAR is the basis of your arguments and debates!

Btw, on the subject of HELL FIRE.

Ever heard of ALCATRAZ?
(Google it)

[size=14pt]God has an eternal Alcatraz, another name for it is called HELL FIRE![/size]