₦airaland Forum

Congrats, Potter. More wins to us. But you're still mediocre sha and hope you get sacked soon.

Drug addicts and religious people both belong to some form of mental prison or mental slavery because truly, "religion is the opium of the people," as Karl Marx said.

Generally speaking, anything taken or consumed or believed in excessively can intoxicate and enslave one's will, including drugs, religion, science, arts, etc.

Eazzii:
You could list dependence on foreign aid as a reason for questionable sovereignty.
But language and religion??

Colonialism and invasion aren't just physical wars; they're also cultural wars, and the superior culture (the culture of the eventual colonial masters) wins.

When one land invades another land to colonize it, two cultures are clashing, just like their weapons, and the superior between them wins.

Language and religion are key elements of a culture, and if you adopt those two elements from your colonial masters' culture either intentionally or by force/coercion, it shows the colonial masters' culture is superior militarily (in the context of colonialism/invasion).

And in reality, most Africans see the Western and/or Arabic cultures as superior and detest the local cultures because Africans are not sovereign in the real sense of the word.

The average African sees the Whites or Arabs (for Muslims) as superior. It's been engrained deeply in the pysche of most Africans using those foreign cultures and religions.

Only few educated/wise Africans don't have this deeply seated inferiority complex and self-hatred.

Those that know how language and religion (culture generally) are used to program humans will understand all these things easily.

Older Yoruba people don't just call the West illu oba (the king's abode) for nothing.

Melvyn11:
The points he was pulling out was so wack. Nigerians practice Christianity so they are not a sovereign country, Nigerians speak English so they are not a sovereign country. Nigerians borrow loans so they are not a sovereign country hehehehe. The nigga doesn't know the meaning of sovereign full stop.

Lols, people like you lack the capacity to think critically about issues anyway.

So, I'm not surprised at your silly comment.

Highly intelligent people know and understand what I've been saying.

Keep your foolish comments away from my mentions.

Melvyn11:
Anytime you are arguing with someone here it's only you that knows what the topic is all about. The other person can never know anything.

That's a lie and you know that. I don't say so always.

Sometimes, I say that because there are many ignorant people on Nairaland. The quality of engagement on this forum is low compared with fora like Reddit, Quora.

I'm also ignorant on many subjects and don't discuss or argue about what I've not researched and read about deeply unlike some people.

If you know what you're talking about, you won't be citing some examples.

For instance, when talking about about space science, only an ignorant person makes a statement like "life only exists on earth, and no where else in the Universe" or says "no confirmed fact in natural science".

Nostradamus1:
I dey avoid this kinda discussion but I will answer today.

1 - You don't know what sovereign and sovereignty mean so I decided to post a pic below for you. All the countries I mentioned are Sovereign entities. Except for the francophone countries, most African countries are sovereign.


2 --America doesn't have its history, indigenous people, or language at the forefront. Using your logic, America is not Sovereign. This is, however, wrong. Being Sovereign has nothing to do with any of those criteria you mentioned.


3- Loans don't affect Sovereignty. Russia borrowed from the West(banks through bonds) before the war. And still owe them today. Is Russia not sovereign?



I think you will make a more informed argument after seeing the definition of Sovereign .

Your example about America shows you don't know what you're talking about. The natives of America aren't a sovereign people. Do you even know the historical background of the systemic racism in the US today?

I doubt you do. I don't want to engage you further on this subject because you don't know what you're talking about.

Nostradamus1:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG8DRuzjXtQ

The video is interesting. Slaves dey demand respect from their masters. Lols

Maybe when you stop dressing like them, worshipping their God, celebrating and placing their culture above yours, speaking their language (even in occasions when the native language is more appropriate), and copying anything Western and seeing them as superior without trying to come up with unique solutions to the unique problems of Africa or even considering local solutions to the problems developed by fellow Africans, they'll respect you.

No one respects people that condemn and demonize their ancestors, culture, traditions, and language.

The Europeans and any rational person know all these formerly colonized countries, including Nigeria, are not sovereign in reality, and that's why the Congolese president in that video was berating the lack of respect from the West, including France.

Colonialism never ended; it just changed form.

You can't be shouting Jesus/Yahweh or Allah all about and be talking about sovereignty or respect as an African. You don't even have self-knowledge and self-respect.

Such people don't deserve to be respected because they don't know their history and have lost their identity.

Nostradamus1:
Nigeria, Egypt, Ghana and others are clearly Sovereign.

I will modify this page with a link to a video

Sovereign indeed, that's why they're still speaking the language of their colonial masters and worshipping the God imposed on them by their colonial masters.

I don't think you understand what's meant by sovereignty. Your leaders run to their colonial masters now and then for aid and you're talking about sovereignty.

Lols.

Egypt is sovereign indeed as if it's the Arabs and the Greeks that are indigenous to the country. Anyway, Egypt doesn't have its own history, its own indigenous people, and its own God; anything the tool of the colonial masters called the Bible says is final.

A book that was written about 2000 years ago by stealing the contents and concepts of older religions, yet Egypt has been existing for thousands of years before the authors of the Bible were born or before the Greeks and Arabs that invaded and colonized the country were born.

Lols, I can see you don't know the history of any of these countries you're talking about, including Nigeria.

Nostradamus1:
your last question is debatable. However, if you are following in the drama currently happening, you will understand better

I don't see any country in Africa that was previously under colonial rule that's really sovereign. Maybe in the future, but not now.

What's the drama about?

Nostradamus1:
Who else is following the news from Francophone African countries and France?

Why is France so invested in this "sovereign " countries?

What do you mean? Are there any former colonized countries or nations in Africa who are really sovereign?

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=6006222419413710&id=100000780347485

The link above contains a video of a corpse of a Muslim woman (Muslimah) exhumed because of a dispute over the space of land she was buried.

The corpse failed to decay after being buried for 13 years, and the cleric was praising Allah for a miracle thinking the natural phenomenon showed that the deceased was a pious woman and that Islam is a true religion.

But a simple test to determine the level of salinity of that space of land would have shown their folly in believing one nonsensical miracle from their Arab god.

Land spaces with high salinity preserve carcasses including human corpses, and salt is one of the oldest natural preservatives known to man.

It's all physical, nothing spiritual or miraculous.

This is how a religion like Islam thrives on the ignorance of people.

Such stories are common in this part of the world where a majority of the citizens lack scientific knowledge and hardly think about issues critically.

And if you tell them to examine this belief critically, they instantly turn you to their enemy as one cleric did in 2018 when I told him in private they should have conducted some tests on such a space of land when he was narrating a similar story to his congregation.

Instead, he said I was a heretic. Lols.

As Socrates said, "an unexamined life is not worth living."

If your religious belief can't be questioned and scrutinized, it's nothing but a sham.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nJU6fhuu3I

Theuniverse:
all my fellow Chelsea fans, as we day laugh at United e sweet well we'll. but my advice to una is if you want to enjoy Chelsea match, do not watch our men team led by mumu potter, instead follow our female team led by our rugged Emma Hayes, a far better coach than that dunce we have now. some facts about our women team. (1) Chelsea women team are the most successful in england, we have 5 titles, all won under our tight coach madam Emma Hayes. (2) unlike our dunce coach potty, Emma Hayes tolerates no nonsense, She commands the respect of her players, who she keeps happy despite having several world class names battling for minutes. In return, they rarely let her down on the pitch. (3) we are in a title race this season. United have 35 points- mancity 32 points- Chelsea 31 points with two outstanding games. arsenal 26 points with two games in hand. so please if you want to watch the real Chelsea, follow our women team and watch tactical,sweet flowing, fast, thriliing, goals packed all action matches, and enjoy the title race. some of our rugged Emma Hayes interviews and quotes. just read and compare them to our Dundee coach. (1) In September 2019, Chelsea were held to a 1-1 draw by Brighton , and Hayes was not impressed at full-time.
"I'm frustrated," she said during a post-match interview. "With the quality we've got and not dispatch of a team like that... It's not okay.
"I need to take myself away from it before I say something I regret." When Hayes wasn't talking, you could hear a pin drop.
All attention was on the gaffer as she delivered a powerful speech on the standards expected from players representing Chelsea.
"Some of you haven't been good enough. We expect more. You should expect more. So many of you were sh*t.
"It felt like deja vu from last year. This is a business. Is the consequence that clear in your mind? If it isn't, you need to become clear.
"This is f***ing Chelsea. We demand a lot from this environment. We will give you everything. You put it in.". (2). Emma Hayes called her Chelsea team "sloppy" despite returning to the top of the Women's Super League by beating Tottenham 3-2.
Chelsea lead Manchester United by two points after they were held at home by Everton.
However Hayes felt Chelsea were below their best and she was relieved they were able to "grind" out a win.
"It was just sloppy. I thought it was sloppy from us defensively," she told BBC Two after the game.
"Both goals we could've prevented as a result of us switching off. We can control those things and we as a team have to be mindful of that.
"This is a tough league and to everybody who thinks it's going to be near-perfect performances, it's not. It's going to be a grind to the end and I'm happy to have three points.". some more facts (1) What have Chelsea won under Emma Hayes?
Hayes became the Chelsea manager back in 2012 and since then, she has guided the club to a record five WSL titles, four FA Cups, two League Cups, and the Community Shield.
The 46-year-old has scooped five Manager of the Season awards, including the last three back-to-back. (2) Chelsea fans want Emma Hayes in charge of men's team
"Get her in charge of the mens," one fan commented. "Ruffle a few feathers". Another posted: "The whole of men's team needs talking like this".
Some supporters were more demanding, with one simply writing: "Bring her NOW to the men’s side!!!!". as for me I fully support bringing her to coach the men's team, and sending that dunce to the women's team, I'm sure the ladies will reject him too.

Na so poto poto make you kolo finish like this. The earlier Potterball leaves us, the better. Boli na clown

Spy360:
You are an intelligent person and I enjoyed discussing with you. Hope you have a pleasant day ahead.

You, too.

NinjaXmetahuman:
Oga o


https://www.nairaland.com/7598258/obidient-celebrated-heavy-rainfall-destroys

Those ones are hopeless fanatics. We've some of them also here on this thread.

Politics isn't a do-or-die affair.

Spy360:
Uncle in those arrays of galaxies and stars you will not find life, not even an amoeba. The creator has chosen life only here on earth.

I keep marveling at that possibility at how life is so abundant here on earth, I mean any where you put a microscope you will see life. And yet, accross the rest of the vast universe in those pics you posted, and yet nothing. Absolutely nothing found. Not even an amoeba. I can only bow my head in wonder and awe.

You've explored all of them. This Nairaland na funny place.

You, a layman and religious zealot, know more than the experts conducting the search tirelessly then and spending billions of dollars on constructing telescopes and observatories to hunt for alien life.

Just stop mentioning me. I've better things to do with my time.

Spy360:
I totally support the search. It would be interesting if something is found.

But while they are searching, this model holds true for now. It's like being innocent until proven guilty.

From your post, you'll probably be dead before an amoeba is found on a distant exoplanet in a far away galaxy. The lay man has more common sense than you.

Lols, the layman has more common sense sense than me because I'm telling you to stop talking ignorantly. Lols.

As said earlier, saying life only exists on earth with certainty shows you don't know the vast number of planets (tens of trillions) and the vast number of galaxies (hundreds of billions) discovered in the universe, and that's not the whole universe; just the explored areas in the observable universe.

So you've common sense and believe life only exists on a tiny blue dot in a universe with uncountable number of dots.

Lols, afi common sense na

You look at the vast number of tiny dots (planets) below and conclude only one of them contains life, and you call that common sense?

Spy360:
You are confusing absolute statements from absolute truths. I have never even used the word truth in all my posts.

Absolute statements.

I am a man. Is an absolute statement. Whether it is true or not becomes a subject of empiricism.

You are not a scientist my brother. 😂

Focus on philosophy.

Lols, because I don't support the concept of God you cooked up. You're simply delusional.

Come take away my certificates and the articles I've published now, lols.

Whether it's absolute statements or absolute truths, both have no place in science.

Spy360:
Thanks for commenting. Your assertion is based on assumption. Mine is based on probability.

So far from what we have seen from near by stars and indeed galaxies there's no sign of life. In over a billion planetary bodies investigated, there is no single sign of even amoeba. That's earth in over a billion samples of planets. That probability is high. If we go by that, the chances of finding life any where in the universe is as impossible as the chances of finding a particular mustard seed in the sands of all the beaches on the earth put together.

With all our technology, no single sign accross the observable universe. The fact that any alien life has not even contacted us speaks volumes is another big sign.

Worst still, we will never know because the universe is constantly expanding faster than the speed of light.

The fact that we will never know, has brought us to an inevitable conclusion.

You're a funny guy. You think scientists would be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on telescopes and missions if we'll never know that life exists elsewhere apart from the Earth?

You're just making absolute statements that are false all about. That the Universe is expanding faster than the speed of light means we'll never be able to observe certain regions of the universe called the unobservable universe.

That doesn't mean we'll never know alien life exists. You're just a layman anyway.

That's why you're making absolute statements all about.

How many papers have you even read on all these things you're saying to stay abreast with latest news on SETI?

How many books of Astrophysics and Cosmology have you read?

It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

To aid SETI and search for planets that can support life were among the reasons for building the JWST which is 100 times more powerful than the Hubble Space Telescope launched in the 1990s.

The JWST cost $10 billion and close to 30 years to be built and is the current world's largest space observatory.

Even so, NASA is still planning to build more:

"NASA’S first Great Space Observatories were the Spitzer Infrared Space Telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Chandra x-ray Observatory and the Compton gamma-ray Observatory.

"Of the four, only Chandra and Hubble are still operational. But both NASA and the professional astronomical community are already discussing the yet unfunded next generation of space-based ‘New Great Observatories.’

"They are: The Habitable Worlds Observatory (IROUV), the X-ray Great Observatory (based on the Lynx X-ray Observatory Mission Concept), and the Far-Infrared (FIR) Great Observatory, based on the Origins Space Telescope Mission Concept.

"In 2020 fiscal year dollars, the Habitable Worlds Observatory which would be launched first would have a total cost of $11 billion. The other two observatories would clock in around $5 billion each.

If we can grow the budget then we can see all three in the sky by 2045, Grant Tremblay, an astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and AAS Vice President."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2023/01/27/after-webb-nasa-is-already-planning-new-great-space-observatories/

The search for alien life is an active research area in science that space agencies are dedicating billions of dollars to because most scientists don't see Earth as the only planet with life.

They're the experts and know it's unreasonable to think life only exists on a tiny blue dot in an unimaginably big universe.

It doesn't add up.

Spy360, you don't understand the way of science. I posted the excerpt below on how a scientist sees truth to show you that there's no absolute truth in science.

If you're looking for absolute truth, try religion, and science is not a religion.

What Does 'Truth' Mean To A Scientist?

1. There are no absolute truths in science; there are only approximate truths.

2. Whether a statement, theory, or framework is true or not depends on quantitative factors and how closely you examine or measure the results.

3. Every scientific theory has a finite range of validity: inside that range, the theory is indistinguishable from true, outside of that range, the theory is no longer true.

This represents an enormous difference from how we commonly think about fact vs. fiction, truth vs. falsehood, or even right vs. wrong.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/07/13/ask-ethan-what-does-truth-mean-to-a-scientist/?sh=17f87fbf7820

Spy360:
Your comment in the bolded means you are not a scientific person. My brother forget it. You are not a scientist.

Science is based on theories, those theories as far as the world of science and knowledge is concerned, remain absolute until proven otherwise.

If you cannot make absolute statements, then you shouldn't argue about any topic at all.

If your dog dies, and you bury it. Then someone asks you about your dog. Will you say 'well I can't make an absolute statement about what happened to my dog'?

I have used science to prove my point, I have used philosophy to prove my point, I have used probability to prove my point, then all you did was to wish them away by simply claiming you don't accept absolute statements even though they are scientific theories.

Making absolute statements is a bad practice in science, and scientists hardly do that. And no theory and laws are absolute in science.

Absolute truth doesn't exist in science where everything is questioned and improved upon from time to time.

You obviously don't understand science at all.

The other day, you said science makes drugs and bombs to kill people. Only a layman makes this kind of erroneous statements as science isn't a person.

Humans use science to make drugs and bombs to harm themselves, and there's good science; there's bad science.

The choice of which one to use is up to the humans.

No astronomer or astrophysicist worth his salt would tell you with certainty that life only exists on earth. The consensus is life is only known to exist on earth.

Scientists don't make absolute statements.

Check NASA page and see what I'm talking about: https://exoplanets.nasa.gov/faq/5/is-there-life-on-other-planets/#

https://www.seti.org/

Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) is a vibrant institute dedicated to finding life on other planets apart from Earth and millions of dollars have been spent by the body toward this cause.

You don't know more than these experts.

But here you're concluding that life only exists on this planet, even though the experts in the field don't believe that.

One of the factors driving the development of telescopes and observatories today is the search for life on other planets.

What the experts in that field say is that they don't know if life exists elsewhere apart from Earth. That's how scientists talk, not making absolute statements to prove your God exists.

Tuchel's achievements with Chelsea in less than two years.

Let's know when poto poto, your favorite manager wins common FA Cup. Clown.

How many more to spell Manchester United ? Dey don spell Man Utd already

Spy360:
Ok.

You don't accept scientific theories because they aren't absolutes. Then don't accept any theories even those of Otem because they aren't absolutes too.

As a physicist, I don't use scientific theories and laws blindly and make absolute statements not stated in the theories.

As for Otem, I don't take anything he says as absolute as I don't believe in absolute truth, even Otem himself doesn't.

Then, I never told you or anyone to accept his claims and that's why I've never shared his book with anyone on this thread. I called many of the things he says claims for a reason.

I only accepted as true those things I was able to find corroborating proofs for from other sources.

If someone is saying the truth or lying, time will tell. That's why I don't bother myself to share his book with anyone.

The author used to send it to people, and those of us that got it read it and made our conclusions independently.

Spy360:
Stop coming too low.

As it stands now, right now in the world of astronomy no other planet holds life. Till that's disputed it remains that standard.

If you are asked, are there proven life forms any where in the universe? Your answer will be an emphatic 'NO'unless you want to deceive people (or perhaps yourself).

You're approaching science as a religion with all these your absolute statements. What makes you think the human definition of life is even comprehensive enough to apply to the whole universe?

Extremely tiny creatures on a tiny blue dot planet are setting the standard for the whole universe. Even experts in the field don't talk so arrogantly.

There's a reason why the JWST was built with the capability to conduct infrared astronomy since the human eyes can't see objects in the infrared region.

It's possible life exists in other parts of the universe but are not visible to us since we can only see a tiny segment of the EM spectrum, and that's one of the reasons for building the JWST that's immensely powerful.

ETs could be hiding in the other parts of the spectrum that we can't see with the naked eye or the current telescopes.

For this reason, more sensitive telescopes will still be built in the future because many scientists don't believe life only exists on a tiny blue dot in an unimaginably large universe.

Spy360:
Hahaha

You are such an interesting fellow.

You are the physicist not me. Those are the theories that gave you the knowledge you have not mine.

You claim to stand for philosophy only when it suits you. See how you threw away works down by Einstein, Planc, Maxwell, Schrödinger, Fermi, etc without any scientific rebuttal away into the trash bin of local argument just to hold your false opinion.

This is sad for science and scientist here that look up to you.

I respect your knowledge and so I can't believe you will come this low. Please don't do this. Thanks.

Lols, you're making absolute statements, and that practice is frowned upon in science.

Even those renowned scientists you mentioned seldom made absolute statements.

Then, don't rely on science to confirm God as you see it/he/she exists unless you're ready to be disappointed many times.

Over the years, I've also seen some brilliant approaches to God, but I've refrained from sticking with anyone because they might be disproven by scientists sooner or later and because I don't want to delve into a religion.

I prefer to be reading various books and be gathering knowledge here and there and be learning and relearning some things with time than holding onto fixed beliefs or dogmas that don't make one to grow and evolve.

Then, it always good to check the limitations of some theories and laws you think you know so you don't end up taking them as absolute.

Spy360:
You are not current.

There's a rover in Mars as we speak. Voyager 1and 2 has toured the entire solar system. Also the JWST you mentioned has the capacity to detect life signatures and forms even in other galaxies.

In a billion solar systems with X10 number of planets, only earth has life. Not even microbes in other planetary systems.

That's a probability of 0.1*10^-10

You call that high?

Lols, this guy is funny. Is it a manned mission? Funny guy

Many missions have been sent to various planets in just our solar system (there are more than trillions of solar systems in the universe).

Not a single one of these missions is manned, and JWST only became operational some months ago.

You're approaching science as a religion. There's nothing like absolute truth in science. Lols.

Science changes rapidly, and saying life only exists on Earth with certainty is laughable.

Even the best astrophysicists and astronomers will never utter such a statement.

Only a layman would.

Spy360:
I knew you would come to this. What you don't get is that if the laws of the observable universe are same, taking it as our sample size, them we can conclude that the laws of the entire universe will still be same. You can't dispute this, remember you are speaking as a scientist.

Now answer the following questions, if your answers are yes then I am right- all natural laws are the same.

1. Does gravity (curvature of space-time) exist accross the universe?

2. Are all objects in the universe made of quantum particles?

3. Do those particles behave the same accross the universe?

4. Is the speed of light constant accross the universe?

You're taking theoretical ideas literally. You can't use a tiny dot (earth) on just one galaxy out of the hundreds of billions of galaxies as a sample size and make absolute statements.

That's flawed.

Only gravity and the limit of speed of light are universal based on the mathematics and observational data from astronomy.

The rest were mainly obtained via extrapolation and theoretical modeling done with computers.

Particles still smaller than quantum particles can still be discovered in the future so no scientists will tell you all objects in the universe are made of quantum particles.

That's absolute, and scientists hardly make such statements.

The best they'd say is, "all objects in the universe seem to be made up of quantum particles".

Particles behaving the same way across the universe is your own view. All these are absolute statements, and scientists rarely make such.

When extrapolating theories established based on conditions on earth to the whole universe, scientists use the world seem, appear a lot (you can confirm that yourself). This is because they know the theories can still be disproven or modified with more discoveries.

Don't take theoretical ideas literally without paying attention to those words.

Spy360:
If there are designers then the universe will not reflect same natural laws. There will be no order.

In the universe, the entire cosmos, the physical laws are same, also the chemistry and biology are the same. All the laws are interrelated and intertwined.

If we accept that there is design, it has to be one designer. No argument on that.

Who told you the whole Universe reflects the same natural laws? The chemistry and biology are the same ke? Says who? Lols

Only very few planets have a similar chemical makeup as the Earth. No planet has been discovered to have the same or similar biology as the Earth.

There are many parts of the Universe that scientists will never be able to explore because of the astronomically large distances from Earth. These parts are called the unobservable universe.

No one knows the laws of nature operational in those regions.

Even in the observable Universe, scientists have only explored a small segment. Most parts are still unexplored because the Universe is unimaginably big, and it takes billions of dollars to build telescopes and organize missions to explore them.

Also, these telescopes and missions take decades to be developed.

It cost around $10 billion to build the James Webb Space Telescope and close to 30 years. Just one telescope.

Other than the universal limit of speed of light, scientists don't know the physical laws in most parts of the Universe, not to talk of the entire cosmos.

The farthest humans have gone in space is the moon. We still have a long way to go.

Even the International Space Station (ISS) is in Earth's low orbit, not extrasolar.

Everything depends on harnessing the speed of light. Without it, we can't explore other planets physically without using robots that can never be as intelligent as humans.

Spy360:
@A001

Do you know that life only exists on earth accross the entire universe?

Says who? Life has only been discovered on Earth. We don't know with certainty that life only exists on Earth.

How many planets have scientists even been to other than Earth? None.

It's irrational to think out of the hundreds of billions of galaxies discovered, life only exists on a tiny spot in the Milky Way galaxy, just one galaxy.

That doesn't make sense.

The possibility of the existence of life on other planets and galaxies is high.

Spy360:
A person does not necessarily have to termed either male or female.

A person is just an intelligent being.

I don't rationalise this complex world being created without a designer. Randomness is an end not a beginning. So says entropy. So the facts are that

1. Whatever is complex eg the universe, there must be a designer

2. Whatever is designed has a purpose

3. A designer must be intelligent and purposeful

Or designers. We don't know for sure, hence agnosticism.