sonOfLucifer:

Same 5hit my weed guy tells me.. always gets me everytime..


then i go home, light up and still the same old sh1t..

crazy niigga

KingEbukasBlog:


crazy niigga

KingEbukasBlog:


Because I experience it ... its actually perpetual and it only gets better . If I can , you can

face palms.... I knew it would get to this...

KingEbukasBlog:


Because I experience it ... its actually perpetual and it only gets better . If I can , you can

face palms.... I knew it would get to this...

Krystalzkris:
face palms.... I knew it would get to this...

Experience is the best teacher

Atheists, skeptics, pluralists even agnostics and all its connected apologists have one thing in common, they know the truth about the existence of God but are confused on the different doctrines of men(religion) each claiming to have access to the real God and in the midst of their confused state, they waved away the whole concept of God because its easy to disregard what you dont really understand especially when you get to a point that you need a truth that is not ridden with prejudice and preconceived judgmental tendencies. This makes them not answerable to anyone as to how to how they live their life because they want to believe in the absolute freedom of their existence.
They should answer this simple question as regarding to their belief that everything came out of nothing without an original creator, What is nothing??

KingEbukasBlog:

Experience is the best teacher

Not in every damn case.

bxcode:
Atheists, skeptics, pluralists even agnostics and all its connected apologists have one thing in common, they know the truth about the existence of God but are confused on the different doctrines of men(religion) each claiming to have access to the real God and in the midst of their confused state, they waved away the whole concept of God because its easy to disregard what you dont really understand especially when you get to a point that you need a truth that is not ridden with prejudice and preconceived judgmental tendencies. This makes them not answerable to anyone as to how to how they live their life because they want to believe in the absolute freedom of their existence.
They should answer this simple question as regarding to their belief that everything came out of nothing without an original creator, What is nothing??

and that original creator came out of where?

Shollyps:
and that original creator came out of where?

What does origin mean to you?

bxcode:

What does origin mean to you?

okay... God came out of nothing because he is the origin...continue...

Shollyps:
okay... God came out of nothing because he is the origin...continue...

Thats the problem i always have with some of your kind, you easily dismiss anything that does not agree with your sense of reasoning and still claim to be logical beings. Do you even want to talk constructively with any prejudice and open your heart to hear the opinion of others?

johnydon22:


You see your first mistake here is equating Micro organisms to non-physical concepts.

Micro-Organisms are also physical values and one necessary do not need to believe they exists . .

Just put your hand inside a Petri dish and confirm . . .

- This argument has taken a desperate turn of trying to equate Physical qualities (Micro- Organism) to non-physical concepts (Spirits.)

- Equating the knowledge of micro-organisms to BELIEF is a totally flawed assertion..

Nobody believes they exist, rather We KNOW because it is a confirmed value... Am gonna ask you to try again, bring another analogy this doesn't do them justice...

It is laughable..

That's it. Knowledge, as well as other abstracts, aren't empirically confirmed. they are the means by which we perceive anything. Now not just one, but several people tell you of their experience. You can't write it off with mind-altering drugs since they had none, neither was it did have the lack of clarity of everyday dreams we forget. These were lucid experiences that WERE NOT conjured by drugs or a sleep state. Your only option is to dismiss it as a a figment of the brain which is naive. This is the folly of materialism. Anything that falls outside of that which we see in this physical world is foolishness to it. One must ask_and I ask you johny. Why would the brain pop out such crap in a strictly material world ? Why should we be even conscious at all ? Last I checked, the laws of chemistry NEVER predicts that a bunch of chemical reactions can conjure up feelings concepts and imagery. This is a question the materialist will always shy away from, humor me by repeating the precedent.

You answer it and I'll tell you why any God-affirming religion is better than your atheism.

UyiIredia:


That's it. Knowledge, as well as other abstracts, aren't empirically confirmed. they are the means by which we perceive anything. Now not just one, but several people tell you of their experience. You can't write it off with mind-altering drugs since they had none, neither was it did have the lack of clarity of everyday dreams we forget. These were lucid experiences that WERE NOT conjured by drugs or a sleep state. Your only option is to dismiss it as a a figment of the brain which is naive. This is the folly of materialism. Anything that falls outside of that which we see in this physical world is foolishness to it.

I wouldn't waste one breathe on this word salad with no bearing what so ever...

One must ask_and I ask you johny.
Why would the brain pop out such crap in a strictly material world ? Why should we be even conscious at all ?
Last I checked, the laws of chemistry NEVER predicts that a bunch of chemical reactions can conjure up feelings concepts and imagery. This is a question the materialist will always shy away from, humor me by repeating the precedent.

[b]

Consciousness as man know it is simply a state of being aware, which is simply put a product of perceptive ability which is a product signature of brain interacting with other neruroperceptive networks.

A plant is also aware because plants are by all means very photoperceptive of it's environment..

Now you want so bad to separate activities of neuroperceptive interactions in a material organism and give it an independent immaterial tag from it's cause which is the interactions of material neuroperceptive networks

No matter how bad you want it human perceptibility, volition, imaginative ability neuro activity or all round consciousness will never be independent of our interacting neuro perception in coincide with the central system.

Oh yes the brain can pop out such a crap, will pop out such a crap and always will pop out such a crap..

Imaginative ability coincides as a mutual reaction of visualperceptibility with the central nervous system which also is in charge of human memory and is in totality the sum of of defining human psychology..

Asking why is more or so asking why the brain dreams at all which i will call a ridiculously nonsensical question.

this goes for.

- imaginations

-day dreams

-optical illusions

-hallucination

these are just illusionary projections of a human mind and is in no way immaterial quantities of a material cause..


And oh last i checked no chemistry law was ever addressing chemical activities in biological neuro interactions in any of it's laws[/b]

You answer it and I'll tell you why any God-affirming religion is better than your atheism.

That will always remain your opinion which am not even here to banter words over...

hahn:


While you're at it, please confirm or debunk the recent assumption by theists that you were raped while in the seminary and that's why you chose to leave Christianity and are bitter towards the religion.

#diary

Jesús!

TheDauraMallam:


Jesús!

Where the hell have you been?

I see you're now born again

KingEbukasBlog:


I know of God's existence therefore there is afterlife and you need to be dead to experience it

Fools like you just throw reasoning fallacies up and down on Nairaland without realizing it.

UyiIredia:


My dad was a pagan, he didn't dream of pagan heaven with his ancestors, he drram of Jesus and heaven which he didn't believe. He isn't the only one. Joseph wanted to put away Mary and he had a dream urging him otherwise. Muslims and atheists experience NDE's where they see Jesus and heaven. Why ignore that? The vast differences in people's NDE experience shows that God transcends the boxes of various religions, it's only a mind trapped in a that will insist it means it's all hogwash. No probe about my Dad I expect to see him again.

This sums up your dad's experience.

hahn:


Where the hell have you been?

I see you're now born again

Hisses.

You unrepentant Nairaland atheists. Not only am I born again, but I ACTUALLY opened a new church.

First Fruits Assembly.

You atheists have no idea how much money there is to be earned when you feed gullible folks with the lies illusion they want to hear.

Watch out for my Abuja and Port Harcourt offices church branches opening.

Hisses out of thread.

Remilekun101:


What is logic?

For lazy theists:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.

Just imagine this, one single logic flaw in computer sciences and every computer on earth develops a flaw. Just one single logic error in math and physics and every single plane on air crashes.

You gerrit?

TheDauraMallam:


Hisses.

You unrepentant Nairaland atheists. Not only am I born again, but I ACTUALLY opened a new church.

First Fruits Assembly.

You atheists have no idea how much money there is to be earned when you feed gullible folks with the lies illusion they want to hear.

Watch out for my Abuja and Port Harcourt offices church branches opening.

Hisses out of thread.

Hold on! Hissing right behind you

TheDauraMallam:


Fools like you just throw reasoning fallacies up and down on Nairaland without realizing it.

Idiots like you should show me how this is fallacious

TheDauraMallam:


For lazy theists:

Logic (from the Ancient Greek: λογική, logike)[1] is the branch of philosophy concerned with the use and study of valid reasoning.[2][3] The study of logic also features prominently in mathematics and computer science.

Just imagine this, one single logic flaw in computer sciences and every computer on earth develops a flaw. Just one single logic error in math and physics and every single plane on air crashes.

You gerrit?

What is valid reasoning?

TheDauraMallam:


Just imagine this, one single logic flaw in computer sciences and every computer on earth develops a flaw. Just one single logic error in math and physics and every single plane on air crashes.

@ bold .. you are clearly a slowpoke

KingEbukasBlog:


I know of God's existence therefore there is afterlife and you need to be dead to experience it

I can't pin point the exact fallacy in the vomit you wrote up, but it sure falls within these logical fallacies :

Affirming the consequent
Example:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Example
The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

I'm very sure your delusional brain knows this to be false. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

It appears you need a crash course is reasoning as a human being and not a relifious robot.
http://59ways..com.ng/2012/11/informal-fallacies-of-reasoning.html?m=1

KingEbukasBlog:


@ bold .. you are clearly a slowpoke

It's a tragic shame that a Nigerian Bible thumping blogger like you knows nothing about the logic behind malwares, software bugs, viruses.

Let me give you logic application possibilities of computing. Now, if apple releases IOS10 and one line of code is incorrectly written, who ever upgrades his phone to the ios version go suffer.

How would you feel, goat, if you type 2+7 on your calculator and it shows 19?

Would you consider it a miracle or a flaw in the calculator?

You see, na bigots like you dey make logical reasoning sound like it's religious. It is not. Logical reason is needed to run the world. Suck it up.

You are deluded.

TheDauraMallam:


I can't pin point the exact fallacy in the vomit you wrote up, but it sure falls within these logical fallacies :

Affirming the consequent
Example:
If Bill Gates owns Fort Knox, then he is rich.
Bill Gates is rich.
Therefore, Bill Gates owns Fort Knox.

Owning Fort Knox is not the only way to be rich. Any number of other ways exist to be rich
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Example
The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

I'm very sure your delusional brain knows this to be false. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

It appears you need a crash course is reasoning as a human being and not a relifious robot.
http://59ways..com.ng/2012/11/informal-fallacies-of-reasoning.html?m=1

You've got to be kidding me .

This is simple .

God's existence includes the assurance of the afterlife . Since God exists then the afterlife is true . If you see an angel , is it delusional to conclude God exists ? If you witness a miracle after being prayed for , is it delusional to conclude God exists ?

You needed to have cogitated before replying me

Remilekun101:


What is valid reasoning?

Firstly, this is 2015 and you could have easily Googled the definition. But, let me still help, for other lazy Nairaland theists.

Reason is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, applying logic, establishing and verifying facts, and changing or justifying practices, institutions, and beliefs based on new or existing information. It is closely associated with such characteristically human activities as philosophy, science, language, mathematics, and art and is normally considered to be a definitive characteristic of human nature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason

Most of the arguments philosophers concern themselves with are--or purport to be--deductive arguments. Mathematical proofs are a good example of deductive argument.
Most of the arguments we employ in everyday life are not deductive arguments but rather inductive arguments. Inductive arguments are arguments which do not attempt to establish a thesis conclusively. Rather, they cite evidence which makes the conclusion somewhat reasonable to believe. The methods Sherlock Holmes employed to catch criminals (and which Holmes misleadingly called "deduction" were examples of inductive argument. Other examples of inductive argument include: concluding that it won't snow on June 1st this year, because it hasn't snowed on June 1st for any of the last 100 years; concluding that your friend is jealous because that's the best explanation you can come up with of his behavior, and so on.
It's a controversial and difficult question what qualities make an argument a good inductive argument. Fortunately, we don't need to concern ourselves with that question here. In this class, we're concerned only with deductive arguments.
Philosophers use the following words to describe the qualities that make an argument a good deductive argument:
Valid Arguments

We call an argument deductively valid (or, for short, just "valid" when the conclusion is entailed by, or logically follows from, the premises.

Validity is a property of the argument's form. It doesn't matter what the premises and the conclusion actually say. It just matters whether the argument has the right form. So, in particular, a valid argument need not have true premises, nor need it have a true conclusion.

A premise is an assumption that something is true. In logic, an argument requires a set of (at least) two declarative sentences (or "propositions" known as the premises or premisses along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition" known as the conclusion. This structure of two premises and one conclusion forms the basic argumentative structure.

The following is a valid argument:
All cats are reptiles. - premise
Bugs Bunny is a cat. -premise
So Bugs Bunny is a reptile. - conclusión

Neither of the premises of this argument is true. Nor is the conclusion. But the premises are of such a form that if they were both true, then the conclusion would also have to be true. Hence the argument is valid.

To tell whether an argument is valid, figure out what the form of the argument is, and then try to think of some other argument of that same form and having true premises but a false conclusion. If you succeed, then every argument of that form must be invalid. A valid form of argument can never lead you from true premises to a false conclusion.

For instance, consider the argument:
If Socrates was a philosopher, then he wasn't a historian.
Socrates wasn't a historian.
So Socrates was a philosopher.

This argument is of the form "If P then Q. Q. So P." The conclusion of the argument is true. But is it a valid form of argument?
It is not. How can you tell? Because the following argument is of the same form, and it has true premises but a false conclusion:
If Socrates was a horse (this corresponds to P), then Socrates was warm-blooded (this corresponds to Q).
Socrates was warm-blooded (Q).
So Socrates was a horse (P).
Since this second argument has true premises and a false conclusion, it must be invalid. And since the first argument has the same form as the second argument (both are of the form "If P then Q. Q. So P.", both arguments must be invalid.

Invalid arguments give us no reason to believe their conclusions. But be careful: The fact that an argument is invalid doesn't mean that the argument's conclusion is false. The conclusion might be true. It's just that the invalid argument doesn't give us any good reason to believe that the conclusion is true.

Hope you enjoy my copy-paste crash course in Logic and Reasoning like a human being and not a religious robot. When you begin to take religious arguments one by one under serious scrutiny, you will see that their invalid conclusions does not make sense. What do you expect from roaming nomads who had no basic knowledge of biology or anything that we do now?

For more readings check out
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid1.php
http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/valid2.php
http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/vocab/validity.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise

KingEbukasBlog:


You've got to be kidding me .

This is simple .

God's existence includes the assurance of the afterlife . Since God exists then the afterlife is true . If you see an angel , is it delusional to conclude God exists ? If you witness a miracle after being prayed for , is it delusional to conclude God exists ?

You needed to have cogitated before replying me

You are batshit crazie.

How does you God's unproven existence include the assurance of an after life?

Please answer my question.

TheDauraMallam:


It's a tragic shame that a Nigerian Bible thumping blogger like you knows nothing about the logic behind malwares, software bugs, viruses.

You are deluded.

If you are a computer scientist , then facepalm for you . Your statement completely showed conspicuous retardation

one single logic flaw in computer sciences and every computer on earth develops a flaw

How on earth is this true ?

In software development , bugs or defects are detected and corrected at a certain stage . Bugs simply deter the execution of commands and debugging simply rectifies this

KingEbukasBlog:


If you are a computer scientist , then facepalm for you . Your statement completely showed conspicuous retardation



How on earth is this true ?

In software development , bugs or defects are detected and corrected at a certain stage . Bugs simply deter the execution of commands and debugging simply rectifies this

I am not a computer scientist, not yet, however, I have an idea of what I'm taking about. Correct me, if I falter

In software development , bugs or defects are detected and corrected at a certain stage . Bugs simply deter the execution of commands and debugging simply rectifies this.

A software bug is a problem causing a program to crash or produce invalid output. The problem is caused by insufficient or erroneous logic. A bug can be an error, mistake, defect or fault, which may cause failure or deviation from expected results. Most bugs are due to human errors in source code or its design.
https://www.techopedia.com/definition/24864/software-bug-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_bug

You don see? Nigerian religious bible thumping erroneously thinking blogger.

Open your brain. You have been fed with too much junk. This is 2015 and information is just a data bundle away. Now who needs a facepalm?

Also, why did you only cherry picked software bugs? Why not the calculator error too? Abi you never see faulty calculator before?

After the big bang, suddenly their was ape which envolve to man and woman, sun, air, water, sand, animals. Oil etc start existing... lol
and they do believe that there was once a moses,
whats the origin of the ten commandent... There is God o

KingEbukasBlog:


You've got to be kidding me .

This is simple .

God's existence includes the assurance of the afterlife . Since God exists then the afterlife is true . If you see an angel , is it delusional to conclude God exists ? If you witness a miracle after being prayed for , is it delusional to conclude God exists ?

You needed to have cogitated before replying me

grailife:
After the big bang, suddenly their was ape which envolve to man and woman, sun, air, water, sand, animals. Oil etc start existing... lol
and they do believe that there was once a moses,
whats the origin of the ten commandent... There is God o

Abeg take this 50 box, go buy lacasera. You know nothing about what is going on here. You have where your next sex and alcohol is coming from to worry about.