^you seem to make a 'good' victim.

^so true. And that leavs us with cultural-contingent faiths? You're right , a certain bible would've either praise or out-right forbid Illama milk if and only if John was raised at your favorite spot.

Forget about the translation, Is there a clear tendency to accepting Fiqh-arguments presented in Arabic at face-value than would be the case, presented in say English. Giving the Arabic language the authoratative air by default?. Despite Islam borrowing theologically and the Arabic culture having seen it's peek. ps.. Doing our utmost to NOT indoctrinate our readers in a partiular Theistic or Atheistic view would be ideal.

" It's forbidden to assault their blood, honour and wealth " Which is otherwise NOT forbidden? ps.. Why is the 'Arabic' laguage so authoratative regarding ideological twists in the Islamic theology despite its( the arabic language's) poverity in many vital feilds and Islam's close relation to the Abrahamic religions?

That i'm an i-d-i-o-t is not a problem , the problem is I don't know about it. It's like suffering from anosognosia. Those who suffer of anosognosia are not only paralyzed, but they are also unable to realize that they are paralyzed. Wonder why ? "People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities." Which Solers do need to exercise their metacognitive ability ?

^Busybodying for the sake of it?!

^No , ofcourse not, i never agree with that old man, its just that i've problems proving him wrong 'sometimes'. Norf, so we bend over backward when a holy Cow shits on our 'masala'???

¨ No, they don't, not more than they have a need to be indoctrinated. Ibti, All a busybody does is political.. that is what Ngonge sold me.

^I just thought it had all the political Ingredience,the BNP, the Daily-Mail,Isalamophoia and most important, your view of Dawkins.

lol. so true , so true , but then again it flares a litle bit of British politics.

^The over-excitement of the BNP Connection is way too ridiculous. A Muslim is as creationist a BNP Christian. shoulden't this be in the politics section?

Let me say this for our Duke and not for the public figure and Somalia's Ambassador to Iran. "Where is the secessionists' Ambassador to Tehran"? good luck Mr Abdiraxmaan.

Something tells me that you're an active member of 'TCG' the Chubacka gang. Welcome to SOL !!

Baa humbug! Huh?! The whole premise of the first video is based around DNA (correct me if I’m wrong here). DNA has seen a shift in the attitudes of scients. Why ignore this Johnny? How do you explain their discovery (apart from merely calling it a 'red herring')? Ignore what? discovery what ? If you either understood what 'the argument about bacterial flagellum' meant or were atleast well-versed into how unimpressed the Scientific community remained about it,you woulden't even dare give me a "small note", and the above meek one at that. Back in 02 we'd great exchanges between the ID creationists and Evolutionists . Michael J. Behe, Ph.D. (ID) vs Kenneth R. Miller, Ph.D. (EVO) William A. Dembski, Ph.D. (ID) vs Robert T. Pennock, Ph.D. (EVO) Jonathan Wells, Ph.D. (ID) vs Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D. (EVO) here,enjoy the refutals Brother, its time i be very frank with you regarding this little "can-you-answer-this-question" debate of ours, as i've realized that all you are able to do is present already-burried ID arguments or take to your empty rehtorics, leading questions ( JB why do you deny it, JB why don't you admit it, etc etc). in short, i feel firing at un-armed man. You came across as a brother who despite his wish to debate from an informed perspective lacks in deeper and proper scientific knowledge of not only The evolutionary theory, but even of the ID arguments themsleves, and the reason i say this is,Had you known or read about Michael Behe's arguments, had you not dared that note. As someone who is indoctrinated in a specefic doctrine,your only obvious aim of having this can-you-answer-this-question 'debate' is ( as you claimed) , 1: To try depict alleged Atheism fallacies. 2: To claim (as many times as possible) that evolution doesen't happen. 3: To claim (as many times as possible)that Atheism and the evolutionary theory are interwined and dependant on each other. So far, none of the three seems to be providing you the well needed support, worse, your belief in a Deity of creation, despite all three points remains unproveable. You seem to think that any disproof of any evolutionary idea or even just a disagreement among the evolutionists themselves, automatically supports you variant of creationism( aka 'poof'). and as a result, you more than willingly spend a great deal of time picking at minor details of evolutionary theory, and very little or no time proving your own case,which is fundamentally so unprovable,that it beggers blind belif or severe indoctrination. Applying this tactic, you not only take controversy within evolution out of context and out of proportion, but also misrepresent the evidence for your own 'poof' theory. Which, when examined closely, doesn't amount to much. Obviousley , i've gone the extra mile to keep the can-you-answer-this-question 'debate' alive. What say you JB? I say Amen, AL WHATEVER !!

This my brother is why i asked you to read it from the books of Science. I think i've mentioned that you've, due to your religious disposition, exposed yourself to the literature of the opponents of the evolutionary theory, and this 'Intellegent Design' ID literature is exactly what i was reffering to. We'd the argument of amino acids not having chemically evolved into proteins We'd the argument of DNA had to exist to enable self replication. We'd the argument about bacterial flagellum. The Arguments from ID are basically red-herring but the irreduceable complexity is both the oldest and most feeble one. The man himself made a now popular comment about it. Now that we've more or less left the coupling of Atheism and the evolutionary theory behind and concentrating ourselves on the scientific theory, we better do it the science way, woulden't you agree?!. I hearby with great negligence offer you watch this and this It's not much of thing to present but it's a contrast to the other camp argues about. If you feel irreduceable complexity is an issue you strongly cling to , let me know. No, my defination is exactly that of Darwin.

^I think i understand exactly where you're falling short, so let me clarify few concepts first. The theistic stance is the position that claims the belief in (or a knowledge of )a real true 'God', hence the burden of proof is on them regarding that 'God'. Now,few theists are prepared to carry that burden, so they desperately seek out some way to shift it to Atheists. Understanding the dishonesty in shifting the burden of proof can easily be noted through the fallacy of begging the question. It's at best an innocent deception to make the theistic claims fade into the background and not be subject to the critical examination. Now, let's not forget that main question here, our Sheikh needs answer. Ps, you're doing just fine, in fact you seem to be a reasonable Theist.

Brother, you seem to have a deep need to couple Atheism and the evolutionary theory so bad you're taking an unforgiveable leap to conclude so, a habbit well engraved in the Theistic mentality?. I'm not suggesting,no, i'm possitively claiming it to be a fact that Atheism is a lack of Belief in Gods while the evolutionary theory is a scientific theory and none of them is dependent on or linked to the other. Atheism is old as Theism while the scientific theory of evolution is around two centuries old. Now, how difficult is that realize? Atheists do not believe that there is a creator, but believe in Darwin’s evolution theory even though that theory has been proven wrong. This, my friend, is where the cookie crumbles so to speak. This is exactly what i meant when asked you to read about the evolutionary theory in the Science books. brother to scream that Darwin's evolutionary theory by way of natural selection ,we've had many other great theories regarding the machenisms of evolution, since Darwins by the way, is proven wrong doesen't cost much, i hope that anybody can scream at will diden't scape you, it doesen't take much intellectual effort to do so. The question is, do you understand Darwin's theory? I doubt that you do. Do yu wish that it diden't hold waters? I doubt NOT. As far as how human-beeings came into beeing is concerned i think i answered glantly by stating the only plausible answer. It then stands to reason, or so i beleive, that you either comply with it or flourish an alternative. It seems that we'll have to look forward to have better exchanges in the future.( my vacation is ticking away ; ) and with that i put my contribution to this thread on halt.

^Firstly Welcome to SOL. Though you agree with the Sheikh and purposefully so, you seem to have fallen short delievering what is in demand of our Sheikh, namely, Why an ATheist's life is Empty. That you think it can according to you get richer with faith, given that imagination is equal opportunity human-trait, is also of intrest. There has been endless attempts throughout time to rationalize the Theistic stance, but claiming it's opposite to be itself( or like itself) has never been the successful one. The statement " In religions people believe that GOD IS without being able to prove. In athiesm people BELIEVE that GOD is NOT also without being able to prove." is, though fashionable, a failed and misleading rationaliziation, which i'll be more than happy to demonistrate why. Let's say for arguendo that i claim to believe in NGOGNONGONGONGO, you ask me what a NGOGNONGONGONGO is?, i tell you it's something that IS, then you conclude that you can't rationally share my belief in NGOGNONGONGONGO . Now, is your knowledge-negative stance a function( reaction if you must) of my knowledge-posstive stance or have you had your own inherent lack of BELIEF in any NGOGNONGONGONGO who just is, that you have no knowledge of? As it's clear, to claim the later is a futile attempt to rationalize the first and a failed one at that, as you can not possibilly negate belief in (or lack thereof) something that is/was not affirmed first. Therefore, the notion "If you can claim that GOD IS NOT then you also ought to be able to prove that and not simply pass the onus to those that claim that GOD IS." becomes fallacious, as that demands an inherent self-generated negation to something that i don't pocesses an inherent affirmation for. It is like asking a two year old kid to prove that s/he doesen't know Calculas. Q.E.D Regarding Agnoticism,i do agree agree with you that many respectable scientists are Angostics, but AGNOTICISM is about knowledge, not about belief or lack thereof. The agnostic position is the only rationally correct stance regarding many things in life, but once we become in poccesessision of a knowledge regarding something we can't stay Agnostic. The Agnostic stance regarding Religion is " We can not know about Gods". therefore believing in them can not be a knowledge of them. I'll have to come back to few assertions regarding virtue, restrainings etc etc later. What is more intresting is shifting the once from the one with the possitive claim to the one with the negative claim.

All in all, it is unfortunate. I was actually hoping for something more fruitful than accusations and a merry go round. Suppose I was wrong and JB hasn’t changed. Until you go ahead and have a go at answering my queries this thread is on it dying legs. One can only be patient for so long. Why sulk off now? What happened to depicting Atheism and it's fallacies? A: becouse you thought it was based on Evolution and found out that it's not?! B: becouse your creationistic myth is no self explanatory enough to wipe it out?! C: becouse you're doubting the validity of the creation myth and are in search of a better alternative ?! By the way, why just delete that line and not the following? I have challenged this and you’re yet to answer my questions or further explain how evolution created YOU. Don't answer, this is just patronising you ala Ngonge. Now, to enlight you about Evolution and/or the evolutionary theory scientifically that is, i'm all in for it, but becouse it's a huge and controversy-magnet subject i'd like you to read about it from the books of Science. I know , you may already have been subject to the literature of it's opponents,becouse of your religious disposition, but it nevertheless helps you widen the horizons. I'm not going to comment or answer selectively chosen paragraphs or questions that wildly accuse Evoloution or the Evolutionary theory of something that it neither says or stands for, like your earlier comment of "Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence?", as there is no evolutionary theory that claims just that. The fact of the matter is, despite the evolutionary theory's neuteral stand regarding how life begun and it's solid base on only explaining how it evolved, Theists willingly confuse it's neuteral stand and accuse it of plasphemy as it doesen't directly sync with the creation Belif, which doesen't only hold the view that human-beeings are created by GOD but adds the sensitive assumption of them ( human-beeings that is )beeing created as is. But,please, no Atheism/Theism or even politics, becouse Neither Theism nor Atheism is based on Evolutionay Theory and playing politicians is not good alternative for cincerely exchanging. To do that let us first DEFINE what is Evolution. Fair? If you feel this last post of mine is another ranting then you may let those dying legs of it fall abruptly, as we're sure our ways will croos each other in future threads.

Ibti, not patronizing you ( Ngonge is horrible), but i coulde't let a tiny but intresting inference there pass un-interrupted , namely, in your reasoning around why 'people go blowing up buildings', you came acroos as one who blames the passive majority for the actions of the few, something ala Dubya. are you serious?.

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi: You seem to be concentrating on how the human body ‘evolves’ rather than how it was created. It's really sad and a great loss of time and energy ( despite me beeing on vacation ) that after two pages and 19 anserwes you're here asking " how it was 'created'" ? One can't help but wonder if it ever occurred to you that by asking that, we've to assume that it is created first and perferably by way of 'pooof'. You see brother even political Theism won't cut it without flourishing the proof for it's assumptions. One might wonder why are we at square one gain, the reason is our Brother is not debating neither as a Theist scientist or a Theist theologist, he is debating political Theism against evolutionary Theory. Our brother asks only questions (mostly rhetoric) and never answers questions, that is why the 'can-you-answer -my-question-debate' is serious buisiness, the questions of intellectual honesty, cincerity and malleability to comform to eventual rightness or wrongness in one's stance are not entertained, it's situation of a cornered Dragon so nothing but spitting fire is expected. The Brother set himself on a mision to depict what he thinks is Atheism's achile's heel, shot his supposedly deadly but quite evolving question and is desperate to turn any malleability, cincerity or ground-giving move from my part to a victory for his poor creationstic, superstitious stance. It really is sad but truely that desperate. The Brother's bravado is about a percieved hole found in the Evolutionary theory and ala 'Harun Yahya' at that. To me evolution means humans being the decendents of apes with plenty of Atheists champion Darwin’s cause Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. and this often leads to fruitless debate. When our brother or people of his stance claim that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in say gravity! What is saddening almost heartbreaking in this bravado is our brother believes that one could not 'believe' in evolution and still be religious!, the fact of the matter is,once we realize that evolution is simply 'a process that results in heritable changes in a population individually and collectively spread over many generations' it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion. Q.E.D [ STILL THANKFUL THAT NO VERSES OF A GIVEN TRUTH ARE ROAMING ... ]

Lastly, the following pictures put a full stop on all the brevado of our political theist Al Burcaawi. Al Burcaai studying a 'creature' beeing !! Same 'creature' evolved to become another 'creature' that can fly and landed on my finger. so much for a 'pooof' creation. i'm disappointed.

^Sorry my Sheikh, Athiesm is a lack of belief that there is a superior being responsible for creation of man and the Universe, and neither Atheists nor theists that i know of conduct a purposeless life, be it one they themselves set for themselves or a mawkishly assumed purpose a theist claims to have been set for him by a Deity of his choice, so that an Atheist is 'likely' to enherit bad characters of Greed is baseless accusation that needs to be substantiated. The list of contributions made by Atheists to the enlightment and well-beeing of Humanity speaks volumes of its own. A trust based on oath is a trust that appeals to a forced morality, No amount of "by the name of" Allah,Christ/God or mother Goose can transform a lie to truth, all it does it intensify our willingness to believe or trust a person. The amount of people who kill and/or got killed by the name of 'Allah'Christ/God is a testamony to that. In conclusion, If you're keen to trust people becouse they can put 'by the name of Allah' in front of any assertion they make, nobody is gonna jimmy that lock. After all, who are we to tell you how to validate/verify and rationally sift through wild assertions?! My experience is different though, most of the people i'd difficulties trusting were more than willing to had me trust them by claiming that the Deity they believe in is their wittness.

[insert paragraphs of references to the ignorance of Atheists in general towards creation and their belief in evolution ‘because there is nothing else left’ in a perceived witty nature] I knew, and you told me that by asking me an existential question you wanted to or thought you could put Atheism and it’s fallacies under the spotlight, a task you've yet to endeavor, but this, the above that is , is way too wanting sagacity, even for a true superstetious person of your clibre, becouse many Atheists just as many Theists don't even know of or are less acquainted with the evolutionary theory, becouse as i stated earlier Atheism in not another Belief system that is based on Evolution as your Religion is based on creationistic myth, but you wish that , don't you? Maybe the whole point behind asking that question was just to be able to paint Atheism as another Beleif system that instead of creationism relays on Evolution. Oy vey,could you be more wrong ? And shock and horror,it's exactly this 'percieved witty nature' that got Humanity out of the dark ages of superstitions, sad for you that the super natural mythology can't be entertained today,miracles can't take place as we know that would be a violation of the natural laws. women stopped giving birth to babyboys without male sperms, and the earth is not flat anymore. Now, how big is the chance that i'll be making this clear again? i hope for a Zero, as redunduncy is not that funny when we've much ground to cover. It is funyy to see you playing the one who decides what THIS is about and asks the questions,Since your superstitious beliefs are too frail for my questioning, i don't mind answering any questions you raise as long as they don't violate the natural laws. Don't get disappointed at me reminding the gallery every now and then about your Belief in the ( poooof ) theory, it's a contrast to what you argue against, and it's only fair. Can a body that works perfectly with all it’s intricacies, heart pumping blood, brain functioning, feeling pain and pleasure, taste, touch, smell, reproduction, muscle growth, food/water disposal, sweat, shivers etc etc be explained away as mere coincidence? This, so far, is the most intellectually dishonet utterance you've made against the evolution theory. it shows how right i've been all along. To your disappointment all that is the human body including its cababilities has evolved with it to its current state, namely all that you named have gone through different stages of evolving inside the body. Those people who carried a mental picture of a somehow enlighted Norf might be stunned , but i'm not. It evolved from some sort of lesser form? I’m sure my house evolved from the rubble and WALLA; there are walls, floors, doors, windows, tiles and a pool! You see how silly that sounds JB? Now, though your footwork has been impressive, its time to bust a new move and actually try to say something conducive to your argument. What an evolutionary simile?!, now, even i too am stunned. Thanks for the clean exchanges.

Originally posted by Al Burcaawi: OK, I suppose I will have to play the one quote at a time game if it makes things easier for you to understand. By now it is obvious you’re pissing against the wind and your only fight back is with the usual reliance on ‘wit’ to get you through. Firstly, What you consider a 'game of one quote at a time' is but an attempt to hold the discourse within the bounderies of a healthy and reasonable exchange, i woulden't survive a minute if you unleashed all your faith in superstitious beliefs , (from mud-blowing 'poof' creation to placing invisible beeings 'angels' on our shoulders to promisiing us a late feast of sexual romp with young houris in a Garden somewhere, if i just swollowed it hook,line and stinker ) on us at one time. In another words its an attempt to help you see the validity of our assertions and make you reflect. Your attempt to call it a 'game' is understandable , as it confirms your resolut negligence to comply with or comform to whatever reasonable outcome our exchanges might lead to, hence your belief in me pissing and/or fighting back,...oh if i only was on the mood. Ever since i rebuted the hints in your Article regarding discomfort in Atheism and it's alleged inherent need to 'nettle' the religious, and further answered your 'debate question', you've been displaying a deep ignorance( whatever it maybe based on) about the evolutionary theory. Originally posted by Al Burcaawi: I suppose finding a human skull and an ape’s jaw, putting them together and calling it science makes some people believe such theories. When it comes to science JB, unfortunately for the Atheists, it is AGAINST the evolution theory. An easy question would be why aren’t we still ‘evolving’? Can you answer that? And this is the what i base my earlier assumption regarding your deep ignorance about the evolutionary theory. Firstly, i can answer that and many other questions regarding avolution satisfactorily, but let me first clarify why my assumption about your ignorance about evolution is suffocating. To do that i'd like to magnify your question and better intensify its interrogative dispostion to such an extent that it becomes clear what is it that it questions. Would i be doing justice to your question if i paraphrased it as following If evolution is right then why are we not still evolving ?, and to strengthen your question add more related querries, like, why don't we see Animals in between evolving stages, a cow with wings or a snake with 112 legs or half-monkey men walking the streets? If i'm doing justice to your question , and i hope i'm doing, then you haven't understood evolution. you may wonder why?, the reason is evolution is a slow biological process, parts of it are observable under the life-span of a human-beeing, we observe it daily, but parts of it can only be studied by stydying the history of the fossils. If you want to see evolution in action simply stand right infront of the mirror,voila, what you're looking at is not only old handsome you, but the intermediate stage between Norf the Senior and Norf Jr, Does this mean Norf senior was a monkey, or more correctly, an Ape?, answer is ofcourse no. Evolution doesen't turn Apes into men more than it turns them into Donkeys. That we're not still evolving is your Imam's little white lie to discredit evolutionary fact,which he finds irreconcilable with the 'pooof' creation 'theroy'. To answer your question i could simply point at your (my) ball-head to point at an evolution in action, as it was once covered with hair. Generically, Evolution is only the adaptation and mutation of living things,so my dear Al Burcaawi, we're still evolving, and with that i hope i've shown your misconceptions about the evolutionary theory. What is intresting here is that neither Atheism nor Agnoticism are based on the Evolutionary theory. I'm not an Atheist becouse evolution does or does not take place,my Atheism is lack of Belief in Gods, meaning that i still would not be rationally convinced to believe in the mud-blowing creation theory( poooooof ), but irrational brothers like Al Burcaawi like to make it so, for the simple reason that for them belief is a choice. For me,i'm not an Atheist of choice,it is a dispositon my knowledge of Gods or lack thereof rationally forces me to take. What is even more intresting is the sort of Theism that advocates for the mud-blowing creation 'theory' (poooof) is, rationally speaking, less likely to be the correct answer to brother Al Burcaawi's question of how man originated on earth that than the evolutionary theory, even if evolution did not ( was not ) take place, so " my question is not(or can't be) answered" does not help brother Al Burcaawi's Belief in the 'pooooof' creation 'theory'. If he doesen't mind sharing with us how does it help his stance,or allow us co-examine the 'poooof' creation 'theory', i'd be more than happy to hear him out. This time, i wanna stay on track so please brother add more wood to the fire,be it, you undress Atehism or share the deep thoughts behind taking your position, given that indoctrination haven't had the upper hand of you. Otherwise, let me do it, let me flex the Atheistic musscle on you.