Author Topic: ask normal atheist  (Read 31872 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ~Hanna~

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 3615
  • Be a light in the darkness.......
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2010, 01:21:59 PM »
I guess what I am saying is that, we know the computer was made by someone, it is much less complex than the universe.....

Did you think the universe just happened by mistake?

Tell us how you think the universde and human life, came to exist.

I have a question:

If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.

Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
of course i would think that humans built this computer,i didn't said there is no G-d and thats it,what i said is that i want more proof Aand until then it is for me a nice fairy tale and nothing more.
SHEMA ISRAEL
שמע ישראל

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2010, 01:31:02 PM »
I guess what I am saying is that, we know the computer was made by someone, it is much less complex than the universe.....

Did you think the universe just happened by mistake?

Tell us how you think the universde and human life, came to exist.

I have a question:

If you walk through a field and happen to come upon a computer, sitting on the ground.

Did someone create it? or did it just exist by chance?
of course i would think that humans built this computer,i didn't said there is no G-d and thats it,what i said is that i want more proof Aand until then it is for me a nice fairy tale and nothing more.
i don't preten to have the ultimate knowledge of how the universe created.what i do know is taht the universe first created in the big bang.i don't pretend to know how it happened and i don't truely dissmiss the option that intellegent life created the universe (maybe as an expreiment like the one in the new particle accelerator but much more advanced) but i din't dissmissed the option that it was created by chance either.after several millions years the first galaxies began to appear.a few milliard years ago the solar systems was created.life on earth begin with single celled creatures on the primedal soup as amino accid joined together to create proteins and ultimately cells.around half a milliard years after that the first life created on land.the homo sapiens begin as a species i think two or three million years ago and split up to two subspecies,waht became the euroasian races (caucasians and mongoloids) and to the negroe subrace wich are geneticaly inferior to us.this is my verson on how life was created.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2010, 03:25:46 PM »
Do you honor your mother and father? If you do, why?

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Zenith

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2010, 07:37:03 PM »
Quote from: normal atheist
[i can agree with most of your answers expect maybe with the evidence argument.
that's because I told you no "evidence".

now, I'll try to explain something...
what do you understand of "evidence", which you request? Because, God is not a mathematical formula that can be proven (by some mathematical calculations). God is not a physical force that you can have an evidence that it exists (by some physical tests) and you can measure (with some instruments). So what kind of evidence do you need? at a certain point, if one desires a "scientfical evidence" to this, it sounds like attempting to study literature by mathematics, or attempting to study a political debate in chemistry, or a philosophy using physics. So, maybe you can tell me what kind of evidence you expect (so I’ll see if there is one like that).

Now, consider psychology and phylosophy. You have teachings there, but what is the evidence that they are true? if there are some things in psychology that can be tested (i.e. put people in a situation and see if they act that way), others are not. Also consider that the explanation of "why things happen that way" is mostly human reasoning, even when there were tests on people. There may be other causes but poor understanding leads to false conclusions. There may be many things that, altogether are the cause, but only some of them were found and others mistaken. So what is the evidence that something is true in psychology and phylosophy? We both call sciences, but, what is the evidence that what they say is true? (isn’t it like seeking to prove psychology with maths?)

I don't think that studying rocks or atoms or biology, mathematics, etc. can lead to a "scientifical law" or the existence of a certain object that is undoubtedly the "evidence" that God exists (if you think otherwise, tell me exactly what you expect to find, because I can't imagine anything like it), or that there are some scientific methods to find some kind of energy to be "God". However, I don't think that that “God” can prove to be a conscious creator of the universe, so the only clear evidence that God exists would be, as I stated in the previous post, if God would make himself manifested (visible) and bring with Him angels and punish everybody that "sins" as soon as they do that, so that they would not doubt that He is real (that would be evidence enough that He exists and He is real, maybe nothing less would be enough and more would be useless). So, if you know something else I didn't think about that could be a "scienfical evidence", tell me what you expect and could be "clear evidence". However, I think the thing that leads to believing in God is rather reasoning, than evidence (although some people may convert to Catholicism, for instance, because of something they saw and they call “appearance of Virgin Mary” – I say so because I don’t think she appeared anywhere). If you want to hear something that is “evidence”, just to be something, there are a lot like that, you may just choose which you wish to believe. But you may not believe them, and even Bible prophecies, no matter how clear they would be that has happened as it was written before, that will not be enough because there will always be questions of the kind “what if…?”. You can seek “bible prophecies” on the internet, read the bible, study, etc. but I don’t think it will ever be enough, and some may even be wrong interpretations, only to get to another fulfilled prophecy, so take care if you do that.
 
If you found that kind of evidence which you seek, let’s say you do. But one day the thought will come and say “but what if there is another explanation for that?”, and that which may be clear and good evidence, will not be an evidence for you anymore, and you will always search for something else, some other “evidences” because doubt can exist everywhere. And this is our freedom of belief: if there was something which, as much as we tried, could not doubt, then it would be something forced upon us to believe, which would mean that God wants or needs robots/zombies, which I can’t imagine why He would either need or want so.

Now I will to explain what it means not to exist God... I think I will get into the theory of evolution as well... .
The theory is something like this, if I remember right: in the beginning there was a big-bang that happened for no reason (or there is a "law" in the universe that tells that should happen with no reason). Fortunately, there were already way too many laws in the universe that were even that good as they made possible the formation of molecules from atoms, then planets, stars, etc. and to be grouped/structured into solar systems, galaxies, etc. Although I cannot believe "matter" is born out of no "matter" (but instead, that is born of energy, pressure, temperature, whatever), and even though I will be that kind of unbeliever that says "I don't believe unless I see with my own eyes", and thus I first expect to see such kind of experiment in a laboratory, or maybe just one broadcasted to the TV, I will ingore this for now. We now have a universe that has formed, and as it is possible, maybe this planet is the only planet which can support life (with all the things it needs) among very numerous other planets.

The “life” dillema.
Although we cannot understand what "life" is, I mean, what it makes a living cell to be a "living" thing, we say that "life" evolved from "non-life". Although I cannot imagine how a rock can evolve, or water, or a piece of "earth", let's say it's just the coincidence that some molecules somehow got into correct place so that would make a complet, complex cell (that would function properly and even give it the capability to multiply – great odds, right? Consider also what must have happened for a cell to get all the ‘ingredients’ in the right positions and in proper quantity), yet maybe it lacked the “life” component of it (that which is the difference between a living cell and a dead cell). Now, we don't know what made it alive/function (have its components move and start the chemical reactions), and I think we have never experienced the resurrection of a cell (because even for us is too hard to make a cell from atoms/molecules, so we need to step to the point when the cell already exists), or even, what can we say about the "birth" of another living cell from "non-living" matter? We learnt at school that only one cell became alive so far, and so we are all descendents of only one cell, although maybe nothing would have stopped the formation of another living cell, and thus beings did not evolve from only one being. Ok, we ignore this again, we just have one living cell that is “the miracle of life”. Still, what do we expect this “life” to be? What do we expect to have made its components move and start chemical reactions (and even continue doing that)? Is it a law of physics that started all? Is it another chemical component? But if life is just some chemical reactions and the moving due to physical laws, I think it is not wrong to say that the Sun is a living being too: it also moves and it experiences chemical reactions, and all is caused by something far in the past. Is there a difference? By this understanding, I think everything in the universe is “alive”, so there is no “miracle of life”. Moreover, we should be just like any other object in the nature (which is only subject to the laws of the universe), and our deeds, words and thoughts should be preordained by some chemical laws, which would mean we cannot have our own decisions, which would make us some kind of robots, which we aren’t. Am I missing something?

Ok, we ignore that as well, and try to study the process of evolution.  First off, we understand “evolution” of species as follows: when a new creature is born, it is not 100% the same as previous (why?), yet there are some limits of the differences they have from their ancestors (for instance, human beings have a limit of height – i.e. don’t grow 50 meters in height -, have 2 eyes, properly placed, the mouth doesn’t grow exaggeratly big, and the nose does not cover all the face, etc.). However, there are some exceptions to these “laws” of the nature, which we call “mutations”. We know that too many of these mutations are “bad”, which mostly makes that creature not survive too long. Very, very rarerly are there those mutations that do neither evil nor good (like a normal tiger giving birth to a white tiger – if I know well, the white tiger is said to have been a “mutation” of a normal tiger). And extremly rare, it is the possibility that the mutation to be benefical (do we have a discovered example of this kind?). However, the theory of evolution of species goes like this: When a new creature is born there is a very, very, very small probablity that it would suffer a benefical mutation. The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive,  and those with less, would dissappear.
What I do not understand as a proper “theory of evolution” of atheism: Others understand “nature” as a kind of spiritual entity (should we call it Gaia?) that has aims, objectives, intentions, wishes, etc. and does not stop until it succeeds what has ‘planned’, and has a predefined understanding of what is “superior”. This way, the direction of evolution is, for instance, from creatures with 4 legs to creatures with 2 legs, from a lizard form to a human form. I heard once the idea that if the dinosaurs had survived, until now they would have had 2 legs, would have had a human form, but a reptile skin and some kind of reptile head. I think people believe that because they consider themselves superior and special (the sense, desire to be superior and special – even that they are happy with the idea that they are smarter than monkeys), and so they put themselves on top of evolution and thus measure the evolution line into “human” direction. I have also heard in a video that was talking about sexual life and said that it is not healthy to have excesive sex, but it should be more moderate, this “healthy way” being explained as “this is what the nature INTENDED for us.”, which is absurd. I have also heard the idea that the nature foresees when a great danger will take place and would evolve creatures so that they would survive when it happens. This explained the “quick” evolution from ape to man – and this idea was even used in a SF movie, I forgot its name. By this idea I understand that if I have a room where I raise rats, but every year I catch one of them and burn it in fire, the “nature” will seek to make the rest of the rats more resistant to fire, or maybe give them wings so that I would not be able to catch them anymore. I don’t know why I don’t expect that to happen… maybe because there are many species that have disapeared, and many times because their environment got destroyed, without the mother nature to interfere and help them adapt. About this “theory of evolution” I just explained: I don’t think this is a good theory of evolution (but rather much fantasy), in which there is no atheism, but there is one god: Gaia (although not fully developped). By this theory, the “nature” keeps in mind what it was trying to do, so it takes some million years until an eye is fully developped, because everything is done “step-by-step” (an attempt of an eye, a better attempt, …, an eye with great problems, an eye with some problems, an eye with no problem), as the “nature” keeps in mind what mutation it tries to perform and simply “builds atop” every generation.

Ok, we will take the first kind of “evolution”, and we will take an example, a creature, to follow its “evolution” to see how good the theory is.
Let’s take an imaginary species of lizard, that we chose to be brown coloured, and lives in grass or some other kind of vegetation. In order to survive aeons, it would need to evolve: here, it would need a camouflage, that is, the colour of its skin to be very similar to the shade of green of the vegetation it lives in (that is, if the lizard’s skin would become dark green and the vegetation is light green, there is no camouflage). As I do not know the procent of probability that this “benefical” mutation would happen, I will try to imagine something. Let’s imagine that of this specific species, there are 5 milions exemplars, and that hypothetically, this exact mutation would happen in 24 milion years (I hope it’s not an exaggerated number), and that through the ages, this number of exemplars would neither shorten, nor grow, and that every year, a new generation of this kind of lizards is hatched. So in 24 milion years, there would be 24 milion generations. Considering that there will always be 5 milion exemplars (this, to simplify calculation), it would mean that there were 24 milion * 5 milion lizards during this period of time. So 1 of 24 milion * 5 milion lizards mutated in what we hoped (that shade of green) in this period. So we would calculate the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation (from a normal lizard): the probability is 1 / (24 milion * 5 million) = 1/120’000’000’000’000, which is a very, very small probability.

Now, let’s take it backwards. We have the probability for a lizard to be hatched with this mutation, and the number of exemplars, and we need to check how much time it will take that to happen. Here is the probabilty problem: From a simple probability lesson (maybe at school), you might have been taught about the throwing of a die, that the odds that the face with the number X (whichever number is X) will result when you throw the die is calculated this way: the number of favorable cases / the number of possible cases, and, whichever number you choose (between 1 and 6, of course), considering that you choose only one number, the possibilty that that number will result when you throw the die is 1/6 (clear enough? 1 number you wish, 6 different number are of all). However, pick a die, choose a number, and throw the die 6 times: It is possible that that number did not result when you threw the die in any of the 6 cases, although the possibility was 1/6. That is because it is almost impossible that when you throw the die 6 times, every time to result a different number than all before. So you may get the numbers 3, 6, 5, 2, 5, 3. You throw the die again, and maybe you will get 2, 6, 4, 5, 4, 3. And yet, “1” did not appear. When will it appear? Answer: impossible to know. Now consider the probability 1/120’000’000’000’000. If it was something that would generate random numbers in the range [1, 120’000’000’000’000], very many numbers will repeat in every row of 120’000’000’000’000 so there would be either impossible or almost impossible that a certain number will EVER result. So, this means that if the first animal that existed was of that species of brown lizard, that lives in grass/vegetation, until now it may have happened that none of this kind has EVER been hatched, and maybe, that it will never be hatched. This is what “probability” is: chance, not rule.

Yet, let’s say one has actually been created: it’s now in an egg. What is the probability that it would not be eaten by another creature that eats eggs, or that its mother does not die, so that it would be able to take care of it; or when it gets out of the egg, what is the possibility that it will get out of the grass and be spotted by a natural enemy and eaten? Or maybe, there is an earthquake that kills it, or maybe a rock falls on it, or maybe it does not find food. Or even, maybe it also has a “harmful” mutation that makes it die quickly. Also, if it reaches maturity, it may be killed, not necessary very hard, even though it has green sking: it may get out of the grass/vegetation, it may not find food, it may be killed by a bigger animal that accidentaly stepped on it, a natural disaster, a rain, a drought, a change of temperature in the region, or who knows what! And if it yet survives until it mates, maybe none of his descendants survive until they themselves mate, or maybe none is hatched with that mutation, or, if one is hatched, there is a great probability that it will die without having such descendants itself. So, do you understand what “random chance” evolution (with no god’s, not even Gaia’s intervention) means? I said “The reasoning would be that those with more or better “benefical mutations” would survive,  and those with less, would dissappear.”, but it seems that “chance” means more than anything.

Now consider what you see in reality: there are way too many developped creatures with many astonishing abilities, very many complex creatures and very complex organs (consider the human eye which is very complex, and its possiblity to get here by random chance – and yes, consider the great flaws it would have had if one not-yet-human would have had partially evolved eyes that did not allow him to see or, even too see very poorly) living in a perfect environment(that supports life, sustains it, etc.), sustained by very many physical & chemical laws. By the way, if light had not existed, then no life could have existed, or even if the laws by which atoms can form molecules did not exist, or even those that allows them to be stable enough, nothing would have been. Yet there are too many (if not all)  laws that ‘work’ one with another, creating an environment that could have not existed otherwise (i.e. could have not existed if at least one missed or was destructive). I think there are way too many things that are “just the way it was needed” so that everything around could exist.

So, there are some explanations for this, as we might have imagined:
-   One I know is the theory by which there are million of parallel universes/worlds, that all or most are chaos (as random chance would create it), and by random chance, considering the millions of worlds that exist, or even more, our world is the only (or one of the only) that has the “just the way it was needed” laws and things (energies, matter, etc.). However, there are some problems with this theory: 1. We cannot prove there is any other parallel world than ours, and maybe the theory itself has been born from fantasy, or religion: that there are gods in another kind of world, there is a heaven and, or a hell, etc. (nothing scientifically). 2. There is neither an explanation as why would it be other worlds, nor how many - if there would be any (leaving it a pure idea/imagination). 3. By the problem of the probabilities, even if there would be an infinite number of worlds, it is possible that none would ‘function’.
-   Other is the belief in a kind of Gaia. I had a teacher that he called himself an atheist and believed that God is a kind of “great mathematician”, but only that, because he couldn’t explain how everything could have been created and evolved by pure random chance to what is today, and found it unreasonable, and believed that Einstein had the same idea about what “God” is. He did not believe that God can, by any means ‘contact’/comunicate wih a human being (as it is told about Moses, etc.), perform miracles, etc. but it is a kind of ‘being’ without reason/thinking, limited to just “great mathematician”, who could have only created the universe, and, with some mistakes/lacks (mutations that made creatures not survive, etc.) has brought it here. He believed that, outside of creation, He is totally absent and unaware. Although this is a more “Gaia” than “no god” theory, I think it’s more reasonable than real atheism(“no god”) theory. Yet, I don’t agree with it either, and it seems that neither do you: You said
Quote
G-d need to be at least as complex as the entire universe
, so if God created everything, he should be superior to everything. Also, my logic tells me that if there is something which we call “God” that is a “great mathematician”, able to create the entire universe, he must not only have a great memory to know what he did so far, so that He would continue doing/creating other things, which implies He would be conscious and think. And if He was a great mathematician, He needed reason/logic (I can’t imagine an illogical mathematician, because mathematics require logic), and if He could create everything, He would be, what we call, “Almighty”. Psalm 94.9-10 (KJV translation version) says “9.He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? he that formed the eye, shall he not see?
 10.He that chastiseth the heathen, shall not he correct? he that teacheth man knowledge, shall not he know?” which is about the same and seems logical to me.
-   Other is that evolved aliens created everything, or almost everything. But this theory is flawed, because you need only ask yourself “but how did the aliens appear?” to start all over again.
-   If you have other theory, tell me, and I’ll think about it and tell you.

I’ve already stated which of them seems more reasonable to me. But, let’s get further with the explanations...
So far we’ve thought about things related to chemistry, biology, cosmos, etc. Now let’s take something more about “life” - that which we live.
There is a kind of force that binds a man into the way he is, the things he does, and the thing he feels. That is, if a man is one day stealing, next time it would be easier for him to steal than it was first time, and even the wish to steal is greater. So if one leaves himself ‘deceived’ by something bad/evil that he is attracted to (like stealing, selfishness, treachery, filthiness, etc.), that bad/evil thing will grow in strength in time as he is is doing it, and the man will become more and more vulnerable to it (the man will feel more attracted to it and more ease to do it), and he may get to a point where he cannot oppose it anymore (and do it every time he feels/can/the thought comes). If you have noticed, ‘bad’ people do not become ‘bad’ over night, when the previous day they were righteouss. The same is with decisions, we draw lines as “oh, I will only do that, nothing more”, “I will not exaggerate into X”, etc. but we always break the lines. Yet as we break a line, the desire grows, even if we draw a line a bit further. Maybe the only thing that gives us the strength to “break free” is if to suffer a lot of that bad/evil thing we did (consequences), which may not be enough sometimes. By the theory of evolution that we are taught, I think that this should never happen, but we should at least not be affected by how much we do them, but maybe we should even become stronger. Is there a scientifical explanation for this, or does the theory of evolution support it? Also, why is it easier to do evil than to do good, have you ever thought about that? The same, is there a scientifical explanation, or does the theory of evolution support it? Yet they are mental laws that did not exist in the universe before man existed (or, how can exist a law so that something, which does not exist and may never exist, would work in a certain way? Because the universe did not know we were supposed to be born).

About the relationship between man and woman:
Somehow it seems that we are ‘made’ “one man for one woman” to form something we call “marriage”. How that? Well, people fall in love, and when a man falls in love with a woman (or vice versa), he wishes to be with her “forever”, only with her, and her only with him, and also a “jealousy” is being born: we cannot be altruist here in the meaning “oh, go and have fun by sleeping with that other guy if you like, I love you, so I want you to be happy!”. People are able to kill for jealousy (i.e. if the other has cheated, has divorced and married another), kill themselves, loose their minds, etc., so “jealousy” is clearly not a breed of “selfishness” (and many times even the past matters for jealousy). Also, the human child reaches maturity (when he can handle life himself, alone) in a very long time compared to other creatures and he needs both parents for his proper development (considering both parents are mentally healthy, etc. of course) which supports the idea of “family”, as well as sex transmitted diseases do (which somehow happens even after the condons have been invented, and might have not happend if people did not fornicate like cats), and also there are many mental things that take place when a man sleeps with a woman (for both), which somehow is healthy if the aim of the man and the woman that sleep one with another is serious and responsible (like, in marriage & family), and somehow unhealthy if the aim is just “having fun”  (i.e. a woman who has had slept 100 men, cannot love and be dedicated to a man with the same heart one which had none does, and most surely she cannot be satisfied with only one man, because she is used to many - the same it works for men).
And I don’t think these can be explained by either that which we call “science” or by the theory of evolution. In other words, I think life is too complex and has too many rules and laws (among which, the psychic ones, as how we think, how we feel) that cannot be explained by a chaotic random chance. Here, I think it is also included the sense of guilt: while we feel guilty for things we “think” they are bad, we clearly feel a strong feeling of guilt if we kill somebody, even though everybody says it is not our fault. Or if we do a great evil to somebody (even if we do not support consequences), it’s not at all the same with the feeling of guilt when we just said something bad, or made a mistake that upseted everybody. I think conscience is not something ‘educated’ by the society. Moreover, I think we could not have formed a society if we did not already have a conscience (to feel guilty, to ‘feel’ what is good and what is evil): even now, it is too hard for people to deprive themselves of the things they may have, so that others would feel good (so they steal, rob, cheat, etc.), so what would have happened if those in the past didn’t even feel any kind of guilt and killing a man would have been the same as smashing a bug? Also, interesting question: why does guilt exist? Yet we know it’s very helpful to us.

By the way, something that seems funny to me, yet seems a good question too: If we are created by random chance, how that we are all symmetrical? I don’t speak about mutants, but about normal creatures: the human being, the spider, the camel, the horse, and very many others. What were the odds for that if all was pure chance?

If it is to decide between reason and evidence, I think evidence is always doubtful, while reason is more trustful.
I don’t think the existence of the universe, all that exists, can have any explanation as why they exist, as they are, if a conscious creator did not exist. But if you have other explanation as why they exist, something which I didn’t think about, maybe you tell me. Until then, if you like to hear “evidence”, then the evidence that God exists is that all exists, the way they are. And creatures are also beautiful – if you think how they would have looked if none was symmetrical : )).
And maybe that's a more important thing, to have a reason as why to believes in God - except that, "I was told that", "This is what we believe", so that you would not feel as you pray to a rock.

And about the theory of evolution of species (as it is taught): I don’t think it has any scientific root. It is a great desire of people to feel superior to others and special, and that feeling of superiority is felt more as, “just because he is” one is superior to others. People use to see their parents (especially in the period of puberty) as old-fashioned, that cannot understand many things (which somehow the young ones do), that are left behind in their foolish past where people believed “foolish things”, not like the modern truths, we imagine people of the middle-age were all being retards (and some movies also helped in this way) “by their nature”, while there were many stupid people because of lack of education (like, they weren’t taught correct things, but were indoctrinated, etc.) and you may still get to see people today that you would think about them, that even apes are smarter than them(and I don’t speak about black people), and that’s because stupidity has no limits. And when we see in the early times great and smart things what people did in ages before, we don’t deny our logic, but we invent aliens that built them and taught people, and even mutated them to “human beings”, while we, in our “great wisdom” are not able to do the things that they did with the poor materials and technology and knowledge that they received. But we are still proud that we are smarter than everyone before, because “this is our nature”. And we don’t stop here either, we like the idea that we are smarter than most people of today, too. Many atheists feel superior to other people because they reached to the top of evolution process, while people that “still believe there is a god/there are gods” did not “evolve” enough to realize there is none, when many don’t even judge this seriously, because “it is already a foolish thing”. And in all religions that are people that feel that there are so smart that they realized their religion is “the true one”, not like the others, which are that fool, that they can’t even realize that! This is what I think, the theory of evolution got its roots from, the desire to feel superior, desire/feeling which everyone has.

Quote from: normal atheist
i would appreciate if you would not give examples using islam.by using this fake religion of criminally insane people you destroy your wonderfull arguments and ruining your thesis.
Despite you hate to hear about islam and muslims, there is nothing bad talking about them. Actually, there is a good point in doing so: for any man, it is very hard to see that their thinking is wrong, or their deeds are wrong (or how seriously bad they are), but no matter how they are, they consider themselves right and good, so it’s pretty hard to tell them sometimes that they do wrong or that they think in an odd manner. In this case, you need an example of someone who does/thinks that, that both of you consider what that one does/thinks is bad (i.e. a muslim), or something that both of you consider to be wrong (i.e. Islam) and point out that bad example. It is easy to make an association, so that the ‘target’ gets to understand that that which he knows it’s stupid/bad – as he understands from that bad example – is the thing himself believes/does, it has a great effect. For instance, if you had some “great idea”, something that seemed to you very smart, astonishing, etc. and I’d find the same thing written in the qur’an or the hadiths, you would change your mind suddenly. So, as long as islam and muslims serve an example, I will use them.
The same ‘technique’ (someone else that is a bad example) was used by the prophet Nathan when David has slept with that woman and then killed her husband. (2 Samuel 12.1-14).

Quote from: normal atheist
i am honoring you as very intellegent ands clever person (are you a doctor at theology or physics?)

1.   My advice: do not honour/glorify people, nor receive honor/glory from people, but talk as from man to man, with the needed respect, nothing more, nothing less, no matter the age, no matter how smart or stupid, no matter how much or little he studied (school, university degrees, etc.). Do not honour/glorify people because this makes him conceit (feel superior to other people, etc.) and do not accept yourself to be honoured/glorified, because it makes you feel conceit (which is a kind of blind feeling of superiority).
2.   It is a common belief that if one reaches finishes a high university degree is very smart, while one who didn’t do that is seen as a fool that hasn’t got even the right to say what he believes, because he is a fool, and he knows nothing or “only foolishness”. Despite the fact that you hate hearing about muslims and Islam, there are even muslims who reach high university degrees (even in countries as UK, as compared to muslim countries), about which it’s said that “they received high education”, they still believe the qur’an, hadiths and all those foolish miracles, and all that goes with it. This is because the “education” was received from home and from imams, while “professional knowledge” has been receieved from university. There is also another problem you should be aware of: In schools, universities, etc. – as in many other places – you are told the story, and asked to believe it. They do not ask you to think it, as much as they ask you to believe it. Because, if you think it, you have to get to the same conclusions as your teacher has, and that school has. The same with theology, psychology, philosophy that is taught in schools: if some things are wrong in the courses, moreover if this is the way of thinking of the entire university/faculty, they will most surely not accept that they are wrong, even if you are right, but will seek a method to silence you (because they should be the smart ones, and you the one who doesn’t know, not inverse). And if you don’t write in the courses what they taught, you should not expect the best mark. I hope you understand that the teachings you receieved in school (university, whatever the degree) does not mean everything.

And, no, I haven’t study any theology at any school, and I do not understand how physics could have been necessary to give a good reply to that post. I could have not reached the doctor degree because I am younger than that. Many things I know are because of what I’ve thought of (meditate), and talked with other people (which put me into the situation to think about many things and find answers, which is, yet meditation).

I hope my answers are good enough this time as well. Now I'll go to sleep, I'm very tired.
And, sory for the length of the text (I somehow get to always write much, while I never like to read much, I don't know how it happens : ))).

Offline MassuhDGoodName

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4542
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2010, 07:59:45 PM »
Every good courtroom attorney knows that

"Absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence !"   ;D

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2010, 02:33:39 AM »
Do you honor your mother and father? If you do, why?


yes i do honor my mother and father,as for the why,i don't exactly sure but i think that beacuse of cultural norms.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Serbian Canadian

  • Senior JTFer
  • ****
  • Posts: 438
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2010, 01:55:39 PM »
Hey normal atheist.

I see that you wrote on your signature that Negroes, Muslims and Commies/Liberals are enemies. Underneath, you have a list of supposed "allies" and on that list you have the European Union. You do realize that they are part of the problem? The EU hates Israel. Also, I hope you realize that not all black people are evil. I wouldn't use the term "Negro", we're not in the 1950s anymore.

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2010, 02:22:51 PM »
Hey normal atheist.

I see that you wrote on your signature that Negroes, Muslims and Commies/Liberals are enemies. Underneath, you have a list of supposed "allies" and on that list you have the European Union. You do realize that they are part of the problem? The EU hates Israel. Also, I hope you realize that not all black people are evil. I wouldn't use the term "Negro", we're not in the 1950s anymore.
to serbian canadian.i wrote the european union in the catgory of the allies to save me the writing of all the eu memebrs.i realize that black are not evil.i do not think in terms of good and evil but in terms of survival and currently they are one of the main treats to our survival evil or not.and i am calling them negroes beacuse it is the formal way to describe them.we do not use the term negroe anymore beacuse of the politicali correct movement that added negative associations to the term but if you will reasd books from the the 19th century you will see that the term was in universal usage with neutral conotations.llets return again to the ruopean union for a moment.if you will look at the enemies list you will see commies/liberals on the list, guess to whom i referred? (besides china,cuba,north korea,vietnam,laos and the obama administartion and the current putin government).but in spite of all this i supportive of the creation of a pan white state (europe,russia,the united states,canada,argentina,chile and uruguay.south africa,greater israel and australia-new zealand) with laws to maintain the autonomy of the local populations (like greater israel to be granted the right to be governed by halacha  and serbia as a state cleaned from ustasa croats).only whites and asians that integrated in our culture could be citizens with muslims and blacks would lovingly be kicked out.in alliance with this state there should be a native american autonomous state (possibly part of the pan white state but with greater autonomy to the local population) which is their right as well as we have right to our own state that will be dominated by our culture and a greater india (modern day india,sri lanka,pakistan,nepal bhutan and bangladesh but i wouldn't be concerned if they will expand toward southeast asia,china and the greater middle east).the state would be a socialist state (i know most of you will not love this part,but the happier the population,the less likly they will revolt).the state would encourage reaserch especialy in the fields of weaponry and space exploration and scientist would have one of the best sallaries in the country.it will with her allies form an organisation similar to the united nations but slightly more powerfully that will be dominated by the white state.africa and the muslim countries would be classified as danger zones and entry would not be allowed to any foreigners.only right wing parties would be allowed to participate in the elections but the elections should be fair and without frauds.
hope you enjoyed,normal atheist.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2010, 04:51:01 PM »
Sounds like you are a racist to me...

In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18143
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2010, 11:49:12 PM »
Thanks for answering my previous question.

Now for the next one.

Did you know that all extant species are on the tips of branches and that evolution does not mean a forward progression? It only means a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Chimpanzees are just as far removed from the common ancestor with humans as humans are, technically. They're not really more or less evolved.

Now on a moral level, yes I would consider them completely different, because we must value human life above all other life in a moral and spiritual sense.

However, just on the basis of biology and science, one is not more evolved than the other.

They just took different directions.

When you talk about one race being "genetically inferior" to another, that doesn't really make sense from a biology standpoint. They may be genetically more prone to do better at some tasks and worse at others however, and they will not be equal to other races in all ways. Blacks may be genetically prone to be less intelligent, but perhaps in the environment they were found in, the plains of Africa, the amount of intelligence they have is enough for what they needed.

Remember that in evolution there are always trade-offs. Large, complex brains need more energy to sustain themselves, more oxygen and food. There may be a cost-benefit ratio in that respect that was different in Africa than in Europe.




Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #35 on: May 09, 2010, 10:01:53 AM »
Sounds like you are a racist to me...

In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?


yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2010, 10:09:23 AM »
Thanks for answering my previous question.

Now for the next one.

Did you know that all extant species are on the tips of branches and that evolution does not mean a forward progression? It only means a change in allele frequency in a population over time.

Chimpanzees are just as far removed from the common ancestor with humans as humans are, technically. They're not really more or less evolved.

Now on a moral level, yes I would consider them completely different, because we must value human life above all other life in a moral and spiritual sense.

However, just on the basis of biology and science, one is not more evolved than the other.

They just took different directions.

When you talk about one race being "genetically inferior" to another, that doesn't really make sense from a biology standpoint. They may be genetically more prone to do better at some tasks and worse at others however, and they will not be equal to other races in all ways. Blacks may be genetically prone to be less intelligent, but perhaps in the environment they were found in, the plains of Africa, the amount of intelligence they have is enough for what they needed.

Remember that in evolution there are always trade-offs. Large, complex brains need more energy to sustain themselves, more oxygen and food. There may be a cost-benefit ratio in that respect that was different in Africa than in Europe.




to canadian american,i don't deny the facts that you posted here.when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2010, 12:30:39 PM »
Sounds like you are a racist to me...

In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?


yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.

I do not believe you are speaking the truth here. Kahanism is not racism, although those who try to speak evil about it call it thus... Judaism is not racist, never has been, never will be...

Judaism is composed of many races and none of them are intrinsically better than the other kind. Personally I care less what kind of 'Jew' you are because you have stated many times you don't care about Judaism. You do know that Judaism is not a race, and therefore you are incorrect if you pain Judaism as a racist religion.

Let me explain what I have learned the JTF position is, because it is the same position which I have had for almost 20 years {longer than you, na, have been alive}...

There are evil cultures in the world but the races are not evil. Evil is a product of evil actions. The soul is born nuetral and all humanity has a thing called free will. The free will is what determines whether an individual is good or evil.

I guess you don't get out much and don't have much contact with people who are different than you are. I have been around the world and I work with people from many cultures and I can tell you personally that they are not all evil. And not only white culture is not evil, there are also good blacks and good mexicans. You and your racial theories belong with Hitler and Nazi germany.

If you espouse such rabid racism you are not my brother, even though you claim to be a Jew. A Jew doesn't treat any human being with less dignity than himself {Love your neighbor as yourself}...

Once again you must understand that we are only fighting the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. My only enemies are those who declared war against us, the muslims no matter what race they may come from. I live in a mixed neighborhood and some of my black neighbors are very good friends.  I am 100% against gangster and thug culltures and have been called racist for those beliefs alone, but those who know me know that I am open to loving and caring for every human being on the planet.

It saddens me that you are such a racist... You do not make the Jewish people stronger nor do you make them proud.

It is also so silly to me that you have such a belief, being an atheist and all... You are so very lucky to have been born a Jew but you have 0% gratefulness for such a position in life. You take and you do not give, you are selfish and you do not have an iota of goodness in you... this is something to be ashamed of... And you are not too smart too...

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline IsraeliGovtAreKapos

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4384
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2010, 01:01:54 PM »
You seem to me more like a Darwinazi than a Judean Nationalist.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18143
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2010, 08:49:53 PM »
Quote
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.

It's important for humans to be intelligent enough to be able to survive in the environment they find themselves in. Remember that because one person is smart and another is stupid doesn't make one better than the other one in any meaningful way other than intelligence itself and the ability to do certain intelligence-related tasks. I think people like Stephen Hawking are smarter than I am, but that doesn't mean that his life is worth more than mine.  Likewise if someone has Down Syndrome and has a very low IQ they have the same right to live that I do. Human beings should not be ranked the way you want to rank them.

It's true that not all races are equal in all ways. Genes probably influence culture to a certain degree as well. However to say one is absolutely inferior and another superior begs the question. Inferior at what, and superior at what?

Quote
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.

Whites tend to be more vulnerable because so many of their features are recessive, but that's not really a value judgment in its own right. Many genetic diseases are recessive so recessive does not mean good.

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #40 on: May 10, 2010, 04:03:56 AM »
Sounds like you are a racist to me...

In general we don't believe race to be the factor which determines if you are good or evil. But you seem overly obsessed with race.. Would you mind telling us what race you are from?


yes i am a proud jew (which is mean that i belong to the white or in his other name the caucasian race).and yes i am racist by definition,and so almost all the posters here along with kahane and chaim ben pesach.according to oxford dictionary,racism is the belive that there are real different beween the races.i hope you are living in the united states beacuse if you are you just need to venture outside and carefully examined the behavior of the negroes and the behavior of whites and asians and then return to here and tell me about your finding beacuse i am sure every american will be glad to hear them.

I do not believe you are speaking the truth here. Kahanism is not racism, although those who try to speak evil about it call it thus... Judaism is not racist, never has been, never will be...

Judaism is composed of many races and none of them are intrinsically better than the other kind. Personally I care less what kind of 'Jew' you are because you have stated many times you don't care about Judaism. You do know that Judaism is not a race, and therefore you are incorrect if you pain Judaism as a racist religion.

Let me explain what I have learned the JTF position is, because it is the same position which I have had for almost 20 years {longer than you, na, have been alive}...

There are evil cultures in the world but the races are not evil. Evil is a product of evil actions. The soul is born nuetral and all humanity has a thing called free will. The free will is what determines whether an individual is good or evil.

I guess you don't get out much and don't have much contact with people who are different than you are. I have been around the world and I work with people from many cultures and I can tell you personally that they are not all evil. And not only white culture is not evil, there are also good blacks and good mexicans. You and your racial theories belong with Hitler and Nazi germany.

If you espouse such rabid racism you are not my brother, even though you claim to be a Jew. A Jew doesn't treat any human being with less dignity than himself {Love your neighbor as yourself}...

Once again you must understand that we are only fighting the enemies of Israel and the Jewish people. My only enemies are those who declared war against us, the muslims no matter what race they may come from. I live in a mixed neighborhood and some of my black neighbors are very good friends.  I am 100% against gangster and thug culltures and have been called racist for those beliefs alone, but those who know me know that I am open to loving and caring for every human being on the planet.

It saddens me that you are such a racist... You do not make the Jewish people stronger nor do you make them proud.

It is also so silly to me that you have such a belief, being an atheist and all... You are so very lucky to have been born a Jew but you have 0% gratefulness for such a position in life. You take and you do not give, you are selfish and you do not have an iota of goodness in you... this is something to be ashamed of... And you are not too smart too...


oysh please,such a bias.well i said you travelled around the world a lot.have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa? if not i am inviting you to go there for an observation and then when you will return please tell us how it was.and now for the jewish part.i am a jew by ethnicity but not by religion,i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2010, 04:10:37 AM »
Quote
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.

It's important for humans to be intelligent enough to be able to survive in the environment they find themselves in. Remember that because one person is smart and another is stupid doesn't make one better than the other one in any meaningful way other than intelligence itself and the ability to do certain intelligence-related tasks. I think people like Stephen Hawking are smarter than I am, but that doesn't mean that his life is worth more than mine.  Likewise if someone has Down Syndrome and has a very low IQ they have the same right to live that I do. Human beings should not be ranked the way you want to rank them.

It's true that not all races are equal in all ways. Genes probably influence culture to a certain degree as well. However to say one is absolutely inferior and another superior begs the question. Inferior at what, and superior at what?

Quote
2)tif their genes tend to be dominant or recesives.from looking at mixed white-black children or asian-black children it is clear that black genes are dominant.that is also the reason why i am considering them much more dangers than islam beacuse the muslims are just mentally ill but their mental illness (islam) is at least curable albeit so far with low success.

Whites tend to be more vulnerable because so many of their features are recessive, but that's not really a value judgment in its own right. Many genetic diseases are recessive so recessive does not mean good.
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18143
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #42 on: May 10, 2010, 08:09:02 AM »
Quote
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.

I don't think the races should marry each other and I think that different races should remain as distinct as possible. I agree that if whites intermarry with blacks then their children will usually be of lower IQ than if they married a fellow white.

However I think you misunderstand something. There would still be a future, but it would be a future perhaps worse than dying off. Look at how the average black lives in Detroit or New Orleans. Now imagine its welfare cut off and no white people around anymore to help. After murdering and raping each other to reduce the size of their population, they might be hunting rabbits and stray dogs with crude spears after a couple of generations if left only to their own devices.

Quote
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).


Intelligence is too complex to be carried on one gene alone. I think the Jewish population would benefit if every Ashkenazi Jewish person got genetic testing so that if they carried the gene they did not marry someone else who carried the defective gene (it takes both parents having it to pass it on). Tay-Sachs might eventually be eliminated.

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #43 on: May 10, 2010, 08:31:11 AM »
Quote
1) i already posted that.i consider race superiority by average iq.our ablitiy to be smart and creative is the key to our future.i don't hate any race but we don't need to interfere with blacks beacuse if we will mix with them it will lower our children average iq.and without iq we don't have any future,we can just as well slit our troats in a mass suicide.

I don't think the races should marry each other and I think that different races should remain as distinct as possible. I agree that if whites intermarry with blacks then their children will usually be of lower IQ than if they married a fellow white.

However I think you misunderstand something. There would still be a future, but it would be a future perhaps worse than dying off. Look at how the average black lives in Detroit or New Orleans. Now imagine its welfare cut off and no white people around anymore to help. After murdering and raping each other to reduce the size of their population, they might be hunting rabbits and stray dogs with crude spears after a couple of generations if left only to their own devices.

Quote
2)well i agree with you in that point.but you need to remeber that most of the genetical diseases are connected to some good traits (the most prominent example is ty sachs,this is a disease that until recent time appeard only in ashkeazi jews.recent reserches found that the same gene that caused the intellegence of the ashkenazi people had caused them also the ty sachs).


Intelligence is too complex to be carried on one gene alone. I think the Jewish population would benefit if every Ashkenazi Jewish person got genetic testing so that if they carried the gene they did not marry someone else who carried the defective gene (it takes both parents having it to pass it on). Tay-Sachs might eventually be eliminated.
1) i couldn't agree more.
2) tay sachs has already been eliminated in israel.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18143
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #44 on: May 10, 2010, 08:49:34 AM »
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #45 on: May 10, 2010, 08:52:12 AM »
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Rubystars

  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *********
  • Posts: 18143
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #46 on: May 10, 2010, 07:23:53 PM »
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.

Oh that's good! :)


Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2010, 03:17:37 AM »
How could Tay-Sachs be eliminated in Israel? New people are going there frequently (that's not a bad thing, but it's possible many people who make aliyah are carriers).
i meant that tay sachs was eliminated among native israeli newborns.

Oh that's good! :)


yep,our big problems now are aids,h1n1 and islam.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.

Offline Zenith

  • Full JTFer
  • ***
  • Posts: 109
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #48 on: May 11, 2010, 06:31:01 AM »
Quote from: normal atheist
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...

Quote from: normal atheist
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...

I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect  the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?

Quote
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?
« Last Edit: May 11, 2010, 08:39:03 AM by Zenith »

Offline Ben m

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Re: ask normal atheist
« Reply #49 on: May 11, 2010, 09:46:51 AM »
Quote from: normal atheist
when i am talking about inferiority of the race i meant two thing
1) the average iq of the race's members.this is the key to the advancment of humankind in all areas.
...

Quote from: normal atheist
have you been to detroit lately? to the middle east (not israel)? to africa?
Though that question was not quite for me...

I think that taking only the average iq of the race’s members is misleading, because there are more factors that affect  the iq of people, of which, of very high importance is the education in the region (which also depends on many factors). I think a more proper result would be if you compare, in a developped country, people who had the same education, blacks & whites.
And by the way, if a white man converts to Islam, I don’t think that makes white men as inferior as Islam and muslims. Then why would people indoctrinated into Islam in the middle-east be genetically inferior to those from developed countries that were not indoctrinated in Islam?

Quote
i prefer to rely on equation than to rely on some 2000 years old books beacuse equations never lie.
Besides the fact that the key point is not “science vs ‘2000 years old books’”, even the science you learnt and believe in is not all “equations” (that is, as clear as that). There a lot of theories, which by definition are the reasoning of men and therefore may be false.
You may know that in history there were a lot of theories, and the “science” of those days (reasoning, their capability and possibility to find information, the “evidences” they found) was many times, in many places, faulty.
So how do you know that all the things you learn will stand the test of time and will not be disproved in the future (when knowledge and technology will greatly improve, and with them, our possibility to better understand the world - get evidences, make tests, etc.)? Did you ever think that all you learnt may not be 100% correct?

1) i based my argument on a reaserch on the united states pouplations.
2)i agree with you that what i learnt is not 100% correct.but unless someone will come with a better theory and better equations,this is the only thing we have.and about this issue,i admitt that you successeded in converting me back into belevieng in god.thank you everybody.
enemies:negroes,musulmans and commies/liberals.
alleis:israel,united states,canada,european union,greater serbia,russia,australia and new zealand and japan/south korea and india.togheter we maight win this war.