₦airaland Forum

I happen to have flown Emirates Business class on two occasions from the US. I wouldn't consider myself rich or prodigal. On both occasions, the journey from New York to Dubai was about 12 hours, then I had several hrs (>4 hrs) layover in Dubai, before onward journey to my final destination.
On Emirates, there are many services that are unique to First/Business class passengers, such as access to airport lounges, free unlimited access to champagne (and other select brands of wine), proper 3 course meal pampering, fully reclining seats with beds and pillows, massaging chairs, bigger seat screens, personal bars, laptop and USB cable ports (although this is now also common in economy class) more personal services from the flight attendants and so on, but here, I will focus on the most meaningful ones to me.

On my trips, the advantages (special services) I enjoyed may be summed as follows:

1) Fully reclining seats: For me, the true value of Business/First class trips is in long haul journeys. For those who have taken these long haul flights, they know how painful it is to sit for 12-14 hrs non-stop in a plane. You can probably pass time by sleeping, watching movies, or reading magazines, but the inconvenience of sitting on partially reclining seats for such long periods is unrelenting, and will haunt your feet and back throughout the journey. In Business/First, you have the compliment of fully reclining seats that double as single beds (you also get pillows and mattress). The value of this may not be that much for 6 (or less) hr flights, but believe me, on 12 hour flights, it such a huge advantage, enough to tempt people like me to spend extra.

2) Refined neighbours: In one of my economy class trips (on Emirates), I tried to recline my seat after take off, because it was a night journey and I was tired as hell. The guy behind me, a bearded Pakistani 'mullah', physically descended on me. That is, he literally started slapping me on the head and all over my body. "Why?" I protested. He responded that I am an evil person for causing him such inconvenience (sounds funny now, but it wasn't on the day). I politely asked him to "fvck off", then reported him to the hostess for physical assault. All the hostess did was tell him that I had a right to recline my seat, but the guy either couldn't understand English or was just a stubborn goat, because he made sure the rest on my journey was very uncomfortable by constantly hitting my seat from behind. Now, I'm not claiming everyone in economy class behaves like this (I've had some very pleasant neighbours in many of my economy trips) but there's always a non-zero chance you'll meet a dickhead like that man. In the upper classes, this chance reduces to exactly zero, because even if your neighbours aren't refined (which they almost certainly are, or pretend to be), your seat is isolated from every other person's, so no chance of unpleasant interactions (again, bear in mind that this is only applicable to long haul flights in massive planes like B777 or Airbus A380). For short distances which take place on small planes, business class seats are typically fatter versions of economy class, so no real advantage.

3) First/Business class lounge: When having long periods of layover, your transit gate might not open immediately. If you're lucky, and you find yourself in an airport with many chairs, good for you! But you may have noticed that airports aren't usually built with a great many sitting areas, not even the best ones like Emirates or Hamad international airport. This is by design! People who are seated are less inclined to shop around. Solution, don't give them too many sitting options. This way, they can move around and patronise the shops, which in turn pay rents to the airport management. This isn't a bother if you have access to the airport lounges, because in the lounges, there are very comfortable sofas on which you can pass out till your flight is ready (just don't miss your flight!). Also, these are relatively safe areas in which you don't have to worry about your things going missing. Emirates lounge also provides 24/7 buffets, bathrooms in which to shower, Bvlgari branded body lotions and perfumes, and free taxi pick up services from your hotel to the airport.

4) Finally, and this is only useful in crowded airports, you get to use preferred lanes which can easily save you 30 mins (or more) of queuing.

Obviously, I've only ever flown Emirates Business class, which is why my post seems like a dedicated Emirates ad. For the avoidance of doubt, this isn't an Emirates ad. In fact other airlines may offer better services than Emirates. I've heard of the legendary services of Qatar airways but I've never tried it because it's usually more expensive than its peers. Maybe when I'm rich enough to afford profligacy, I'll try Qatar!

I don't know how far back in history you wish to restrict the answers, but seeing as you've posted this in the religion section, it would seem you're expecting the answers to focus on religious figures of history. Naturally, one might be tempted to mention the likes of Jesus/Muhammed because they have the most followers presently, however, it's not so easy as that. The only reason humans idealise religious figures of history is because we have very little information about them in the first place. We receive limited nuggets of factual information and then resort to artistic liberty to fill in the gaps. Over time, we end up with fantastical hagiographic accounts which are attractive enough to persuade people into believing that such people are perfect, ergo the buildup of devoted followership with time.

Imagine these figures had access to, and were active on social media, then many of their strengths, flaws, ideological flip-flops and idiosyncrasies would then be laid bare for all humanity and for all of eternity...or until the internet expires. As a result, they probably would have come across as very ordinary humans with glorious flaws! Then their followers would end up being just their clansmen/women. On the other hand, maybe if they were superstars who did something really remarkable, like Shakespeare/Da Vinci/Beethoven, then their social media followership would be great, not for their perfection though, but for their individual brilliance.

I would nominate artistic and engineering geniuses like Shakespeare or Da Vinci or Beethoven as candidates for the most followed historical figures if they had access to social media.

From experience, I can say with a significant degree of certainty that most Muslims inexplicably give hadiths far more importance than they deserve. Tbaba unwittingly hinted at the root cause of this unfortunate attribution of importance in his comment which I've quoted below:

tbaba1234:
...It is not everything a Muslim writes that we take authority from.

I ask, why appeal to any authority at all?

As meticulous as the likes of Imam Bukhari and his cohorts were, they too, invariably fell into the trap of hinging authenticity on authority. This is why their "irreproachable" stamps of authenticity, the ones Muslims fondly refer to as "sahih", gave preponderance to the reputation of the narrators, qualified by their chain (isnad) of connection to the prophet, over the consistency of the contents (matan) upon which their reports are based. The unfortunate consequence of this is that you'll find many hadiths (and I'm not referring to the week ones) codified by the respective sahih collections which are in blatant contradictions with each other.

In the best case scenario, many of the narrators may not have intended to lie, but the contradictions nevertheless, expose the unreliability of human memory, especially when narrating oral traditions that are several decades, if not centuries old. I mean, our memories even fail us when narrating events that are merely hours old! In the worst case, some of these authority figures may even have blatantly lied. No matter either ways, it is obvious that appeal to authority is a questionable way to compile events of cosmic significance. The only way in which Bukhari and co's approach would make any sense is if those texts were intended to be read purely as historical biographs, not as a set of divinely inspired codifications by which to live your life, which is how most Muslims presently treat them.

Additionally, since consistency does not necessarily translate to accuracy, the consistent parts of the sahih collections are automatically questionable too, which makes the collections all together, less than reliable. It is therefore, shocking that God should communicate its important message to its creations by such an unreliable method.

So nevermind Ibn Ishaq, he's just a convenient scapegoat useful in elevating the works of the other famous collectors who were more painstaking than he was in their appeals to authority. Although, their compilations are practically no more significant than his, historically or factually. Even if we discountenance his contributions, most Muslims still have big problems in their treatment of hadiths.

KingEbukasBlog:
You didn't answer my question : What then triggered this continuous change from an infinite time past ?

And it seems you espoused a very outdated theory developed by Hawking about "mother and baby universes" . And our observable universe is just one of the newly birthed offspring of a pre-existing universe. Hawking later said that quantum theory requires that information is preserved in black hole formation and evaporation. And if the information is preserved in our universe then there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes.

He said :

"There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe. I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes."

There is also the problem of an infinite series of ancestors and infinite set of cosmic descendants . How do you circumvent these ? Who is the first ancestor or mother universe ?

Ebuka, you, not me, confirmed with your impressive perceptiveness that I'm a verificationist. Knowing this, I wonder why you wish to force me onto a position on the origins of the universe? I swear, if I had the answer I'd share it with you, because I'm never shy of sharing what I know. I'm usually shy, however, to defend speculations, for this might ultimately be misconstrued as my answer on the subject. I'm very sceptical about all the answers out there, simple!

KingEbukasBlog:
And how was it possible for the antecedent conditions for transmutation of the universe from one state to another set since you reject the existence of a First Cause ? What then triggered this continuous change from an infinite time past ?

I do not reject the existence of a first cause, I only assert that there is nothing that makes it necessary. Both Newtonian and relativistic models, which are predicated on a "cause-effect" relationship, suffer a catastrophic breakdown just moments after whatever events birthed the universe as we know it. To further complicate things, quantum theory, which may describe some of the pre-inflation phenomena, enshrines in its postulates, the inexorability of true randomness. As such, we may even have irrevocably lost a considerable amount of information describing the previous state(s) of the universe. How then can I say for sure?

You are a verificationist (proponent of verificationism ) then not an atheist

Oh, such tyranny! The product of a thoroughly discrete mind!. I assure you sir, I am both a verificationist and an atheist. And if it interests you, here are some other "-isms" to which I subscribe: Humanism, nihilism, descriptivism, multiculturalism, secularism, nonconformism, individualism; and perhaps, a few more whose existence I am yet unaware of. If you asked me though, I'd rather just be known for being simply 'human', for this word aptly encompasses the innumerable complexities of our kind. Discrete identities on the other hand, can be both tedious and dangerously simplistic.

KingEbukasBlog:
I may have misconstrued his arguments . AgentofAllah , if you were not arguing for a universe that came from nothing , what were you arguing for ?And where do you stand ? Please be clear not like Kay17 who is always evasive.

I was arguing for a universe whose origin is so nebulous that it is practically impossible to know whence it originates using present models. The universe, for all we know, may need not have "originated" in the first place, instead transmuting from one state to another.

Presently, I don't find any theory compelling enough, so I stand nowhere on the subject.

KingEbukasBlog:
forgotten your discourse with deepsight ?

Nope, but you clearly have! Please revisit the thread again, to remind yourself that I said nothing of the sort.

KingEbukasBlog:
AgentofAllah , Kay17 tacitly agrees with Lawrence Krauss .

I doubt I have ever claimed that the "universe came from nothing". I don't even know what "nothing" means. Nor do I know what Laurence Krauss' views are on the subject matter, so it is curious how you've come to infer that I "tacitly" endorse his supposed view of the origins of the universe.

The OP seems particularly interested in what factor has influenced the recent rise in atheism. As many have pointed out, there is a plethora of reasons why any single individual may adopt atheistic views, not least, the excesses of Pentecostalism. Nevertheless, only few have touched upon the specific thing that has catalysed this "rise", which seems to be the operative concern of the OP.

To address this question, we must not forget that Pentecostalism has existed for decades in Nigeria, yet the rate at which people identify as atheists seems to have spiked only pretty recently. Definitely more recent than the destructive force of Pentecostalism rared its ugly head. I will hinge the reason for this spike solely on the internet. My claim is based on an educated speculation that this observed spike correlates with the period in which the internet became vastly accessible to many Nigerians. I will go one step further to propose two possible ways as to how the internet may have caused this spike.

1) Survivor's bias: The lack of religion based census means there is severe statistical blindness towards atheists that may have existed long ago. The problem here is that if atheists existed in large numbers in the past, they would mostly have been unheard of, making whatever inferences we make about the population of past atheists inherently biased. Like no other census methodology in the history of mankind though, the internet provides us with easily accessible ways to gauge the population of atheists in Nigeria, albeit informally. This naturally gives a less biased representation of the population of atheists in Nigeria, and may invariably create the impression of a spike in rate of adopters of atheism, especially compared to the pre-internet era.

2) Mass Exposure: Aside from providing more accurate statistical data, the internet also makes all kinds of information easily accessible to users. As a general rule, the more informed people become, the more skeptical they get. The internet has certainly done a lot to expose the rot in Pentecostalism. This, perhaps, has caused people to question their values in numbers never before heard of.

I would propose that both these effects are not mutually exclusive, and have most likely reinforced each other, in fact. But regardless of whether it's either/both effects working here, there is no denying that the underlying common denominator responsible for the apparent spike is the internet.

I do not know how this OP defines "Existence". Any word that is in common usage, and serves as a placeholder for clearly understood concepts exists!

Get this OP: Dictionaries derive their importance from spoken words! Thus, when your Oxford and Webster prescriptions omit certain words that are well in use in Nigeria, the appropriate interpretation is that those dictionaries are made to cater to the needs of their primary targets; British and American societies, respectively. As such, they are inadequate manuals, ill-equipped to address the rich and descriptive diversity of the Nigerian lexicon. What they must not become is divinely inspired omniscient texts that reduce the unique Nigerian experience to "Nonexistence".

blasterman:
According To Facebook User Ashafa Med



https://www.facebook.com/med.ashafa/posts/10213243421066347?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22O%22%7D





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

naija don suffer

I don't know how people can draw any positives from the unruly behaviour of these individuals. All that was achieved with the screams and hyperactivity was delaying the inevitable. The guy will still be deported; probably exactly as was intended, just on a different flight. In the end, the confrontations and aggressive charges would have amounted to naught.

If you guys really want to vent your anger in unity, then you will do well to target the politicians who call the shots in Abuja. those are the people solely responsible for whatever perceived disrespect you experience abroad. Instead, you're patting yourselves on the back for bullying people who actually treat you with significantly more respect than your average Nigerian security operative.

The behaviour of these group of Nigerians was inexcusably stupid. Should those videos make it to CNN and BBC as they so incessantly threatened, then it would be to ridicule their ignominy, not to extol their virtues, because they hardly exuded any virtues worthy of extolling.

RoyalBlak007:
♤Filtering they help people oh

[color=Purple]♤and they looked so shabby and unkept in the video.[/color]

Have you ever been interrogated by Nigerian police? You think they chose to look that way? Nigerian interrogators have a way dehumanising their subjects. The investigation should have been carried out professionally, instead, these guys were brutalised, then put on media trial. Although, it is clear that at least, one of the trio is guilty of the crime, I will not be surprised if the court dismisses the suit after their arraignment, due to stupid technicalities that could easily have been avoided if the police had any sense in them.

I wonder who trains the Nigerian police.

What's wrong with borehole water?

DoctorAlien:
Because you won't think before you talk, you did not see the word "translation" in my post.

You're correct, I missed the word "translation". Still, my question remains pertinent. On what authority is the claim that the KJV is the most correct translation of the Bible?

DoctorAlien:
First of all, I use only the KJV, because it is the most correct translation of the Bible. Take note.

On what authority is this fantastical claim made? Even more correct than the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts upon which it is based?

SirWere:
Whether man performs "atrocities" on animals or not is not the point. We still share biological urges, however repressed, to view animals with "the prey and predator lens"
Animals have attacked humans lots of times; without provocation!
If you grew up in a semi-urban Nigeria; I'm sure you would have heard of many instances where snakes attacked bricklayers working in uncompleted buildings

But that is exactly the point, my dear sir! I suggest you read my post again if you haven't realised this yet.

Facts and figures are all right when calmly discussing it. But in the face of danger, rational thinking, probabilities and statistics fly away from a person's mind.
Movies and other media do not help too also.
We have been preconditioned to think that snakes are always venomous (I don't understand the differences, to be honest) and must be struck down! Anywhere, wherever they are!!

I understand this point. Facts and figures are supposed to deepen our understanding of things. We can afterwards, chose to apply this understanding, even against our primal instincts. And in the event that your primal instincts overcome your best efforts at self-refinement, the least you can do is become sober and reflective. What you shouldn't do is go about glorifying your weakness all over the internet.

Children who take excursion to bushes are usually threatened with "a snake will bite you if you wander off" or words to that effect and that strengthens the belief further that "All snakes are a dangerous breed".

I understand that it's not all the time we have the patience to point out the nuances between dangerous and harmless snakes. Although, it may be argued that taking children on excursion to bushes entails informing them correctly about bushes. I fail to see the point of an excursion in which participants are misinformed about things related to it.

Anyways, the point is : due to preconcieved beliefs, stories and what have you; a Nigerian man/woman's first reaction when seeing a snake is to hunt it down and kill it!
Whether that is good or bad is debatable.

Yes, this is what I'm lamenting, although, my lamentation isn't limited to just snakes.

Sorry, you're tripping here.
Having been opportuned to live in a somewhat rural environment, I can tell you that no one goes hunting for snakes or enters a snake's "habitat". No... It's the snakes themselves that invade barns, walls, roofs and other enclosed areas.
Snakes swallow chicken eggs; will bite the chicken then escape.

Any poultry farmer will attest to this.

So no; Snakes are the invaders, not vice-versa

The word "unnecessarily" was thoughtfully used in both the title and body of my post. I believe cases in which snakes steal your chickens, eggs or living space don't fall under the category of "unnecessary". That said, there are also many cases where snakes have helped us to combat rodents that carry and spread deadly pathogens. I'm by no means advocating dumb pacifism, however, when you think up the right response, note that snakes do unwittingly sway into our farms/houses much as we sway, unwittingly, into their habitats during our "bush excursions".

That I agree.
But, even so, we're social beings, malleable only to a certain degree when it comes to individualism.
Convincing a man that he should not attack snakes right now will be like using a hand fan to redirect the wind.

Convincing comes one (wo)man at a time my friend. I once harboured irrational fear for exotic animals too, but here I am; a living proof that not all (wo)men are completely hopeless.

SirWere:
AgentofAllah;
when you make a blanket statement like "All animals are beautiful"; it is easy to deride your argument with examples.

Please, go ahead, deride my argument with examples! For every example you give, I'll pull out 10 examples of humans committing atrocious crimes against animals...so I dare you, present your examples.

Most of the topics which hit FP pages concerning animals are usually snakes; and snakes, well, have a significant number of poisonous species in them.

Actually, there are only two know species of poisonous snakes; Keelback and Garter snakes which are endemic to Australia and the Americas respectively. But I think you meant venomous (not poisonous). Still, only about 25% of species are venomous. The vast majority (75%) of species are neither poisonous nor venomous.
Besides, snakes just want to be left alone. They only strike when threatened! So as long as they aren't invading your living space, and you aren't invading theirs, everyone can go about living their lives, including snakes.

I dig that animal killings should stop but it's one of the evils of today's mordernization.

Modernisation has afforded us an unprecedented opportunity to educate ourselves about our environment and our fellow earthlings. Let's not waste this opportunity by succumbing to irrational fear of our neighbours.

HomoSapiien:
If you see cobra in your kids room, please don't kill , rather have a bed for him.

It has just occurred to me that all those "Look what I just killed" topics on the front page were about cobras in kids' rooms. I'm blind as a bat!

Of recent, my mind has been occupied by the tormenting thoughts of how so many Nigerians are irrationally disdainful of our fellow earthlings. What I cannot wrap my head around is why some cowardly nincompoops feel compelled to brag about one animal or the other which they've killed, maimed, burned, slashed, squashed, smashed or exterminated. It is not clear to me if these individuals actually wear their kills as some kind of self-aggrandising badge of honour. What is clear, however, is that such cowardly acts expose you as a weak sadist only able to draw strength from killing helpless beings that are much weaker than yourself. Stop the unnecessary killing of animals just minding their business. Animals are Beautiful People!

Is it that you are incapable of reasoning that, just like you, these animals have communities of theirs? Can you not see that they are playful friends, loving mothers, dutiful neighbours, committed workers and life bearers...just like you? Stop the unnecessary killings of animals just minding their business. Animals are Beautiful People!

Unfortunately, this sick behaviour is as rampant among our supposedly educated, as it is with the uneducated. If you are not hungry, and have no plan to eat it, why kill it? Sadly, some of the moderators on Nairaland are complicit; addicted even, to the glorification of cowardice. How many times have we seen on the front page, people bragging about one unnecessary murder of an innocent animal or the other, as if there's something worthy of praise or attention about such ignominious acts. Stop the unnecessary killing of animals just minding their business. Animals are Beautiful People!

Nairaland is a wonderful platform through which we all rub minds, learn new things and express ourselves and many times, shout each other down. It is also a place where many people desperate for attention do all sorts of despicable things to make front page. I hate to prescribe to people how to run their things, but I can say from observation, that the most respected social fora are ones in which the moderators and owners take a strong stand on ethical subjects. I hope Seun et al. will take a strong stand against these coward humans who inexplicably believe the earth belongs to them only! You may not be able to stop people from unnecessarily killing other earthlings, but you can purposefully deny them that attention they are so desperate for.

Animals are Beautiful People!!

https://s2.dmcdn.net/QqXco.jpg

pressplay411:
Without mincing words, Nigeria is without a doubt one of the most religious countries in the world. The dominant religions being Christianity and Islam. Our daily living and societal engagements are hugely influenced by these two major religions.

It becomes a major backlash not to conform to the norm, not to belong, either as a Christian or a Muslim.

Hence my question.
Would you raise your children as Atheists?

The answer to this question depends as much on their mum, formal education and community, as it does on me. Seeing as I'll play just a fractional role in the information they'll be receiving from their environment, I'd be pretending if I told you I know what I'd raise them as.

However, I sure as hell know that the information they'll get from me would always engage their critical minds. What they are raised as would eventually come down to the combined outcome of mine and all the other influences in their lives. There's really no way of telling what that would be though...Nor do I presently harbour any expectations for how they would turn out.

I'm cautious about expectations because as a case in point: My parents saw in me, a good, god fearing Muslim, but look what a terrible disappointment I've turned out to be today.

Seun:
Yea, it boggles the mind. Rilwayne001 should be ashamed of himself. I admire AgentOfAllah for having the patience to explain why it's wrong.

After many sessions of introspection, I've come to accept the sour truth that my capacity for critical analysis is often undone by my own routinely obstinate credulity. As such, I kind of empathise with the religiously inclined when they draw conclusions from faulty or incomplete reasoning; so I can only try to be patient.

Empiree:
Ha i see. If you want to know if he is truly atheist, buy him a plane ticket. When he reaches 35000 above sea level, instruct pilot to nose dive the plane and see how "agentofAllah" would scream God God God to rescue him

Lol...adorable! The funny thing is you're probably right! A few years of self re-programming cannot suddenly undo the damages from decades of indoctrination. However, my screaming for help would not do anything to ascertain the existence (or lack of) of god.

Empiree:
I have alwyas thought "AgentofAllah" was muslim until now.

Yes, "WAS" being the operative word!

Does he mind telling us how he acquired his moniker?

I think you meant to ask why I acquired the moniker. Simple: It's a reminder of the purpose for which I was religiously indoctrinated. Analogous, in some sense, to Agent Smith in the Matrix; who found freedom in deconstructing the system he was invented to protect. Although, the movie characterised Smith as the antagonist, all Smith really wanted was to become human!

Rilwayne001:
No doubt, I goofed here, thanks for correcting me. I've never seen a ghost to have make such ridiculous assumption about their sounds, my assumption was based on nollywood movies. Lol. In short, i made some sort of scary sound, which i am certain you got my point clearly.

There's something refreshingly admirable about your self-deprecating approach to concession. Well done!

From the article: By the age of 2, a child's imagination kicks into gear as she imagines things she can't see, which opens the door to fear of the dark and monsters.

My points is where do these imagination come from?

This is a good starting point! I can't give a specific answer to your question, but I look forward to reading your well articulated theory about this in the future.

Rilwayne001:
I've been studying kids these days, i wanted to know if really they believe in some sort of supernatural powers or something, then i remember as a kid, i often get scared whenever its dark— it's always like some forces are coming to carry me away, and so because of that, i remember I'm always holding on tightly to my dad whenever its dark,and in Most cases whenever there's no light, what could have warranted this fear? i don't know.

Here you prove that kids can be afraid of the dark. Nothing new! Even adults are afraid of the dark! It's a vestige of our evolutionary reflexes from times we lacked the night vision advantage that our nocturnal predators had. Darkness impairs our most useful senses and leaves us vulnerable.

there's this niece or mine that's quite stubborn. she will be 2 by July , although she's not a coward like me as a kid, she doesn't get scared whenever its dark, but she did something that made me conclude that kids believe in some sort of higher forces in our world.

Last week, i was studying in my room, her mum was in her room sleeping, and while she was playing, she just went to the backyard, i could see her from my window, i notice she was going to play with water and so i shouted her name to desist from going there, she couldn't see me, but she knows i was the one — being a stubborn girl, instead of her to go back, she just smiled to my calling and went ahead to play with the water. I shouted at her again, this time, she was just laughing at me. Then i decided to be murmuring like a ghost, this time, she got terrified, she was so scared that she started running back inside. She started crying loudly at the same time and woke her sleeping mum. The mum asked who beat her, she couldn't talk, all she did was hug her.

This got me thinking, this is a girl that can barely talk nor understand clearly what you are saying talkless understand the Idea of a God or satan or any supernatural forces we believe in.

Here, you have shown that kids are comfortable with familiarity, and can quickly get uncomfortable when an unexpected, unfamiliar perturbation affects their safe place. Your voice may have sounded scary, but it most definitely did not sound like ghost murmurings since you've probably never heard a ghost murmur before, so this is pure speculation. There are many perfectly natural phenomena that can make scary sounds which kids are hard wired to fear, and you just may have hit one of those frequencies. Especially, you underestimate the imaginative creativity of a 2 year old!

For the record, kids believe the idea of a supreme God and that automatically makes the claim of us being born atheists a wrong notion.

Your conclusion is faulty. It does not follow from your limited observations. Moreover, there is a 2014 study¹ by K. Corriveau et al., which disproves the notion that kids are hardwired to be religious.

In conclusion, you have made some well-known observations about human behaviour, which are robustly addressed by evolutionary biology and attempted to link these to the idea of a supreme god. You have not made clear how the fear of darkness or of strange sounds (which you purport, without evidence, to be ghost murmurs) imply belief in a supreme god. You may want to reformulate the procedure of your experiments and come up with a more appropriate conclusion than this shoddy job.

¹ K. H. Corriveau, E. E. Chen, and P. L. Harris, "Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds," Cognitive Science, vol. 39, pp. 353-382, 2015.

jomoh:
By your definition of fact, the planet earth was generally believed to be flat and as at that time, due to the absence of equipment it was believed to be the reality (Universal reality right?) so what happened to the fact when the earth was later discovered to be spherical? Learn the meaning of "material part" until you do so, we will keep on going back and forth and arguing from a parallel view.

Apparently, you also don't know the meaning of "reality". It has nothing to do with what is generally believed! Besides the claim that the earth was "generally believed" to be flat at the time (I assume you mean 1400 years ago) is an ignorant myth. There are RECORDS dating as far back as 600 B.C. which indicate that the notion of a spherical earth was already taking roots within philosophical and academic cycles. You'd know this if only you explored a little further than your nose OP.

I dont see the relevance of this question with the part you quoted except youre trying to make a mockery of yourself and not me. You wont ask me if the earth is part of a galaxy.

Why have you dodged the question? Allow me to remind you of your claim:

jomoh:
It is erroneous to thing the earth is a material part of the Universe. It is only an Object like the Sun, the moon, the stars and other planets.

Besides, I don't know if your inconsistent treatment of stars is because you don't realise that the sun is also a star/or you're just too deep into your bullshitting, that you forgot what you said earlier on. Let me remind you, you claimed the earth is not a material part of the universe, it's just an object like the sun, stars and moon, then in another place you claim galaxies(stars) are material parts of the universe. So are stars a material part of the universe or not?

If i deduce anything from you comment it is that expansion of the universe has no effect on the formation of planets. Right? ("ok. accepted". Now answer this questions for me.

1. What has been occupying the spaces been created due to the ever expanding universe (If I'm right, this expansion has been happening for billions of years)?

2. Where do these Molecular clouds come from?

I have not said expansion of the universe has no effect on the formation of new planets, I have said there is no evidence that it does. Get used to scientific language man! Now, back to your questions:

1. As far as we know, nothing but vacuum is occupying the space created by this expansion. It is well-known that the material density of the universe is decreasing with the continual expansion, which implies that no new matter is being added to the expanding universe.

2. Molecular clouds that exist are as old as the universe itself. They either came from the deionisation of protons at the beginning of the big bang, or from the remnants of stellar nucleosyhtesis of dead stars. They are NOT new additions to the universe!

Correction accepted. But still answer this question. If these are not new planets, then what do you think would have been the distance between the Sun earth and this planet on Day zero of the creation of the Universe?

There was neither an earth nor a even a sun when the universe came into being. The universe is ~13 billion years old, by comparison, our solar system is just about 4.5 billion years old.

Your example it flawed. Why? because a balloon does not have a floating Object in it neither does it have molecular clouds that breaks into stars and planets.

Every material, yourself included, have objects floating inside of them. They are called atoms! Most of your spatial make up is actually vacuum. If we were to shrink you into just your constituent electrons and protons, you wouldn't occupy up to half the space occupied by the nucleus of a bacterium!

If the earth is a material part of the universe but it is not expanding(static) with the universe due to gravity, is it still material. If it is, and there is no distinction between the static earth and the Universe then does that not imply that the universe is also static?

Mate, the earth is not static! it is moving, along with the sun, around the center of the milky way galaxy, at a dizzying speed of ~830,000 KM/h, because the sun is gravitationally bound to the milky way. The milky way is also being pulled away from, or moving towards other galaxies, depending on which force between universal expansion or gravitational attraction is stronger.
Invoking my previous example of rubber band/balloon, when you stretch these objects, you don't necessarily rip the atoms into their individual protons/quarks, instead, you stretch the interatomic bonds until they reach a breaking point. This doesn't mean the stretching isn't acting on the atoms. It's acting on their external interactions, not their internal ones. Similarly, if earth's relative position changes with respect to other galaxies, then expansion has acted on it! Expansion affects the earth and everything within the galaxy. Stop doubling down on ignorant assumptions.

If gravity bounds the earth to the sun, does it bound the other planets too to the sun? If it bounds the other planets to the Sun, Then again what occupies the space being created by the ever expanding universe.

Yes, it binds all the planets in the solar system to the sun. This is well-known! As for your follow up question, refer to my answer about density above.

My proposition about new planets not been seen may be wrong but you have yet to demonstrate anything else that is material to this argument that appeals to common sense(No offence).

I don't wish to appeal to common sense. I'm appealing to science, and science doesn't deal in common sense because common sense is crude, therefore, overrated.

Again here is where you keep confusing yourself. Like you earlier said with reference to the bold above, You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact. In fact there is no scientific definition of Heaven(Because science does not believe in the word as it originates from religion). The fact that scientist has not been able to distinguish between the Heavens and earth does not mean it is not the reality. So it not only dubious to attempt to adduce what science never implied in its definition to it, it is in fact criminal minded to do so. This brings me to this question. (For example, the Quran spoke extensively about the 3 stages of conception of pregnancy from sperm level to foetus level something science only came to confirm over 1400years later.) So does it mean it was not the reality because Science didnt confirm it?

Mate, I agree that there is no scientific definition for heaven. I'm not trying to claim that there is one. It is you and the author whose work you disseminated who have tried to validate the Quran with science, by imposing the scientific concept of "universe" on a conceptually distinct word, "heaven". I only tried to show how flawed you are by doing that; unfortunately, you're now projecting your flaws on me. Anyway, thanks for correcting your initial mischaracterisation of heaven as the universe by stating that "there is no scientific definition of heaven". That's what I've been trying to point out all along.

And please don't get me started on the catastrophically erroneous description of the stages of conception in the Quran...you'd better picked up a proper biology textbook before you get yourself into another mess!

No you don't know or maybe you know enough but not being critical of your knowledge enough. The bolded is evidence for you. You just contradicted yourself. If the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't distinguish between the word heaven and earth then how are you so sure that the heaven is not the universe?

I am sure because in the scientific definition, the universe includes everything in it! There is no conceptual distinction between heaven and earth. If you were on the moon or on Mars or Jupiter, earth will be part of your heaven!

So because science does not distinguish between heaven and earth does that make it final the there is nothing like heaven?
If you believe there is heaven then why take everything science says as final?
If you believe there is heaven then what is your definition of heaven? Where is Heaven?

It's not just that science doesn't distinguish, it is that such a distinction is conceptually absurd!

I get it perfectly and you're the one confusing yourself by not been able to distinguish between science and Religion. Not knowing where to draw the line between science and religion. Science and Religion are not at war only that Science is too young to understand somethings.

We've heard that one before. "Science is too young", yet has achieved in just a few centuries, things religion couldn't for millennia! There must be something wrong with religion! Besides, it is you who tried to validate your religion with science. I'm merely arguing that you should refrain from doing so if you don't want to be embarrassed!

At the first bold: is exactly where your confusion lies. You are defining Material from a scientist and physicist point of view but you fail to view it from the Importance/relevance point of view.

1. How material is the earth to the expansion process?
2. If the Universe expands, does the earth expand too?
3. If the earth doesn't expand will it stop the expansion of the universe? All those gravity BS are immaterial to this argument. As long has the earth does not physically expand when the universe does, then it is immaterial to the universe' expansion.

4. Also, if the earth is not there does it mean the end of the universe as it is?
5. BUT if the heaven/sky as you and I know it is not there, will there still be what you call the Universe?

Gravity is NOT BS, don't persist in ignorance! The earth has an infinitesimally small but non-zero contribution to the expansion of the universe. If the earth should suddenly cease to exist, then the universe will expand a little bit faster than it currently is because the gravitational force of the earth which counteracts this expansion will also cease to be.

At second Bold: Synonymous you say? Good luck telling that to a judge in a court of law. You know why I brought the definition of law? because this is a contentious issue and if i am to challenge all your scientific beliefs officially, it will be in a court of law.

Aside from insisting that those words are synonymous, I'll not bother responding to this underwhelmingly juvenile remark!

Try reading and arguing outside your profession it helps to see things from different angels. I'm an accountant and and those two words are not legally synonymous. Those are sometimes the deciding words that wins you cases in law. Ask a lawyer.

I dare you to pull up any legal thesaurus of repute in which "essential" isn't synonymous with "important". Pick up a thesaurus some day, before embarrassing yourself with childish posturings.

jomoh:
I will repeat my stand. The earth is an essential/important part of the Universe but not a material part of the Universe as regards to it's expantion. I don't care if their is no physicists with such view point. It could be that no one has presented them with argument from that angle. That doesn't mean it is not a fact.

Facts are statements that inhabit a universal reality OP. You cannot simply wish your whims to be fact, and claim you don't care about the scientific position on them; especially when in the first place, you were trying to use science to validate your claim.

Galaxies(stars) are material part of the universe' expansion by the virtue of their positions and placements.

Is the earth part of a galaxy, OP?

It is a known fact that every planet in the universe does not have the same age. Meaning that are older than each other and when I talk about age I am not talking about when they were discovered.

So If scientists agree that all planets were not created or come into existence at the same time and they all agree that the universe keeps expanding then is it not simple and common sense that those younger planets were added as the expansion grew?

It is neither that simple, nor is it helpful to subject science to the primitive rules of common sense OP. As far as we know, there is no evidence that the processes that bring planets into existence are the same processes the cause the universe to expand. This is an unsubstantiated claim. Planets come into existence during the formation of new stars; which themselves, come into existence due to gravitational collapse of molecular clouds. The heavier elements in these clouds are what eventually form planets, not the expansion of space OP. Like I said, read in the evolution of the solar system.

NASA recently discovered at least six new planets. My question is this what has been hiding those planets all these years that has made them not discoverable or visible to NASA. I should probably note that NASA discovered these planets with same telescope they have been using all this while cos they never announced the use of a new or advanced telescope.

OP, these are NOT new planets. These are newly discovered planets. There is a huge difference! That these planets weren't discovered before doesn't mean they never existed. New planets have very peculiar disk-like shapes; and are anything but fully formed spheres! Your question erroneously assumes NASA has looked everywhere in space for planets. This is an absurd proposition, given the vastness of space. It also betrays your staggering ignorance as to how telescopes work. A telescope is basically just a camera that can see distant things. Just like your camera, a telescope can only see things it is pointed at. Making the kind of claim you are making is the same as saying because humans have cameras, everything on earth has been photographed; therefore, if you see something new in a photograph, it is newly created and didn't exist before. (I hope you can now appreciate the absurdity of your suggestion).

By your assertion you're simply but indirectly implying that the universe is static. Because by expansion their is bound to be addition no matter the angle you view things from.

I have implied no such thing, either directly or indirectly. And no, expansion doesn't impose the need for material addition to anything. This is a misguided assumption! When you expand an elastic material (such as a rubber band/balloon), would you say you have added something to that material?

If by your assertion that the expansion of the universe affects the earth and other planets, then the earth should have left it's orbit a long time ago or even the distance between the earth and the Sun should have increased.

Of course expansion does affect the earth, but there is a counteractive force known as gravity which bounds the earth to the sun; hence the reason it remains in orbit.

let me go back to my submission. The earth and other planets are essential, important part of the Universe but they are not material part of the Universe' expansion. Meaning the earth and the other planets and objects in the universe are simply startic Objects in the ever expanding universe.

Please don't go back to that erroneous proposition. I have demonstrated how absurd and inaccurate it is. To be ignorant is excusable; but to be obstinately ignorant isn't.

There is no ambiguity in the Quran. It is your understanding that is limited. The fact is that God stated unequivocally in The Quran that he is the one ever expanding the universe. In the verse that you read in clear English above (Quran 51:47) is there a anything that looks ambiguous. If you are still not certisfied or you do not trust the author, you can as well Google the transliteration of the Arabic text and research on the meaning of the words used yourself.

I know the words that were used in the Quran, and I am sure that word "samaa" doesn't translate to "Universe". It simply translates to "heaven", which is why the following verse referenced "earth" as a conceptually distinct entity. The word "universe, as I have said before, does not distinguish between "heavens" (assuming this means everything contained outside of earth) and "earth". It looks like you're the one who should be doing the googling, not me.

You appear to be the one trying to bubiously question the authenticity of the Quran. while hiding under the guise of science.

You don't have to always accept everything at the face value. You should also try to consider the critical meaning of every word used. The evolution of the word heaven that you seem to have problem with does not have a scientific background because obviously science does not believe in the concept of heaven.

I think I know enough of science to know what scientists mean when they mention the word "universe", and it does not distinguish between heaven and earth. You may try to brush this off as a linguistic problem, but this is just applying band aid to an infected cut. The Quran clearly imposes a conceptual distinction between heaven and earth; something the scientific discovery of universal expansion doesn't!

If you are to go by the religious definition of heaven, It is the place that starts from large expanse of sky above us to an invisible destination beyond the sky. So If the material part of the Universe that keeps expanding is the sky above us and not the objects below it (the earth, moon, mars and all the planets) then it is safe to say the heaven is the same thing as the expanding Universe.

You still don't get it, do you, OP? There is no sky above us or below us. There's just the universe, and all that there is in it; and make no mistake, we ARE a material part of this universe. Expansion applies to everything in the universe, although, other forces can counteract it. Gravity makes you stick to earth, this unfortunately skews your perception and makes you believe there are things above you. There is no objective direction in the universe, there are just relative directions from fixed points. You may want to add Newtonian inertial frames of reference to the list of things to study. You don't quite understand relative positions, it seems.

BTW you should also consider getting to understand the meaning of the phrases "Material part", "essential part", "important part". If you can't get it online maybe you should consult a lawyer to give you a better explanation of them.

On the issue of the erroneous believe that the universe is startic stated in the article, you should really consider contacting the original author because it is Obvious it was a misnomer on the part of the author and does not take anything away from the FACT stated in the Quran. That is why the link is provided.

OP, I am a material physicist. I think it should be clear to you that I know precisely what is meant by the word "material". As for "essential" and "important". It seems you don't even realise that those words are synonymous. At any rate, I doubt either you or a person whose sole expertise is law, is competent enough to teach me the meaning of words that are used so banally like components of an anthem in my field. Choose your advice carefully!

jomoh:
Though I'm not the author of this article, I will as much as possible 51st to explain as reasonable as I can.

Thanks for your time

First you have to know the earth is like an object in the universe who in itself is a large space. The concept of heaven is directly the universe that we are talking about because heaven as it is know is the space/roof we see above us.

Simply put of we say Nigeria is expanding, it doesn't mean my house or your house will also expand. So also of we say it is shrinking it doesn't mean my house will shrink.

The earth itself is a defined object in the universe that has it's own weight and diameter.

OP, this explanation isn't at all relevant to my petition. Besides, I know how expansion works.

It is erroneous to thing the earth is a material part of the Universe. It is only an Object like the Sun, the moon, the stars and other planets. If the universe expands, it doesn't mean the earth will expand it only means the space around it will expand. So also of the universe shrinks the space around the earth will shrink and of it shrinks to an extent, the hearth will definitely be consumed.

It is not clear why the OP believes earth is not a material part of the universe, however, this is an incorrect assertion. Expansion isn't the only force acting upon the universe. There are other forces too, for example gravity, in particular, which is mostly responsible for keeping the earth together. If universal expansion isn't acting on objects within the universe, then how would scientists be able to detect that distant galaxies are receding, thus inferring the expansion of the universe? OP has wrongly imposed a conceptual distinction between the earth as a unit of the universe and the universe as the sum total of everything in the physical world. There is no physicist worth the title who holds this misguided opinion, nor in fact, is there any scientific support for this Viewpoint.

Also as the Universe expands, more objects(planets) are being added.

It is not clear what OP is implying here. Does OP mean to say emergent planets in the universe are a result of expansion? I hope not, but if so, may I suggest OP should do a little reading on evolution of the solar system. Important clues as to how stars and planets come about will be found there. As a bonus, this information is readily available on Wikipedia, and may be accessed by typing the emboldened term in Google.

Well that is something to take up with the real author.

Another thing to take up with the real author.

I took the first thing up with you OP, because you seem to agree with the real author on the points made. It seems unusual that such an important scientific fact would be stated in the Quran, yet no Muslim scientist corrected mainstream science on its erroneous belief. Don't you find this absurd? Maybe the more accurate explanation is that the original author and yourself (by association) are trying desperately to take advantage of the Quran's ambiguity to reinterpret it so as to conform to current scientific viewpoints.

I have explained this earlier I think it should now be clear that there is no ambiguity in the word let alone "dubious" motive to mislead anyone. It is only a matter of you not properly understanding the concept of the universe.

No! You have made nothing clear, you have only attempted to dubiously redefine the word "universe" to exclude the earth, and it is not clear what gives your redefinition any flesh, except perhaps, the need to persist in the erroneous understanding of the word "heaven" as used in the verse the original Author referenced. I believe with your explanation, I definitely have a more proper understanding of that word than you do.

jomoh:
THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE


In the Qur'an, which was revealed fourteen centuries ago at a time when the science of astronomy was still primitive, the expansion of the universe was described in the following terms:

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

The word "heaven," as stated in the verse above, is used in various places in the Qur'an. It is referring to space and the wider universe. Here again, the word is used with this meaning, stating that the universe "expands." The Arabic word "moosiaaoona" in the term "inna lamoosiaaoona," translated into English as "it is We Who are steadily expanding it", comes from the verb "evsea," meaning "to expand." The prefix "la" emphasises the following name or title and adds a sense of "to a great extent." This expression therefore means "We expand the sky or the universe to a great extent." This is the very conclusion that science has reached today. 1

OP, is there a conceptual distinction between the word "samaa" (heaven) as used in this verse, and "aard" (earth) as used in the subsequent one. If there is, then it is misleading to state that the word "samaa" refers to the universe; as the word "universe" consists of both the heavens and earth.

Until the dawn of the 20th century, the only view prevailing in the world of science was that "the universe has a constant nature and it has existed since infinite time." However, modern research, observations, and calculations carried out by means of modern technology have revealed that the universe in fact had a beginning and that it constantly "expands."

OP, it does appear there were no competent Muslim scientists to correct this erroneous notion of a static universe up until the dawn of the 20th century. This is rather curious since surely, it was blindingly obvious to them that according to the foremost scientific textbook, the Quran, the universe was indeed expanding. Can you comment on this OP?

...During these observations, Hubble established that the stars emit a light that turns redder according to their distance. That is because according to the known laws of physics, light heading towards a point of observation turns violet, and light moving away from that point assumes a more reddish hue.

The emboldened is patently false! Light of stars do NOT turn redder according to their distance. Their colours change based on the direction of their velocity vector with respect to the observer. Also, your description is way too simplistic; and only applies to light in the visible spectrum! Actually, the colour isn't that important, it's the wavelength/frequency that matters. When a light source, like any other wave, moves towards an observer, the observer witnesses a so-called blueshift, where the apparent frequency of the light seems to increase (or its apparent wavelength reduces). On the other hand, when the source is receding, the observer witnesses a so-called redshift, where its apparent wavelength increases/its apparent frequency reduces. Unfortunately, the terminologies are a misnomer which can easily mislead people who aren't aware of the definitions of these terms.

This fact was explained in the Qur'an in a time when telescopes and similar technological advancements were not even close to being invented. This is because the Qur'an is the Word of Allah: the Creator and Ruler of the entire universe.

The OP hasn't in any way demonstrated this claim. As I have pointed out, questions linger as to the real meaning of the word "heaven" in the verse upon which this claim is predicated. It seems desperate, and quite frankly, dubious to impose a misleading interpretation on a word just to give your holy book scientific credibility. Science is not built on ambiguity OP!

Arabjo:
Assalamu alaikum brothers and sisters in islam, I made a promise to Allah S.w.t (absconding from listening to music) but couldn't keep it, I want to break it, because it seems difficult to me....
The question here is how or what can I do to cancel that promise.
Pls help me.

Mukina2
Sissie

Op, why did you make such a promise to Allah?

Thanks Naptu2. You have no idea how much this means to me...it came at a time I'm organising an African event at my institution; so I've shamelessly created a new playlist in which more than 60% of the songs are from your list. The song "Welela" brought so much memories, I almost teared up listening to it!

Thank you again. You're awesome!!!

DeepRegrets:
I became an atheist because I was abused by my dad who is a theist and because I also wanted to sin without feeling guilt, not because I lack the convincing evidence to believe in God's existence.

I hope you now have "the convincing evidence to believe in God's existence". I wish you happiness as you navigate your way through the murky waters of meaningfulness!