₦airaland Forum

PulsingPurple:
I believe you didn't make your points with intentions of debate or anything.

So this is just a casual conversation, casual thoughts. Especially focusing on the last things you said:

What counts as right or wrong?
To an ion it's +be or -ve...
To a computer bit it's 1 or 0.
In boolean, it's true or false.
To a plant it's? See it starts to get complicated? Nutrients or not, light or not, water or not, depending.
To a baby it's? Complicated too? Comfortable or not, happy or not, etc, depending.
As you climb the ladder, you realize that things with a lower capacity for reasoning don't even have the capacity to comprehend what is right or wrong for something of the higher capacity, no matter how much you explained.

A computer bit could evolve tho... Could end up being part of a machine learning model that's able to simulate better reasoning, AI.

Saying all these to say by normal logic, a human wouldn't be capable of reasoning far beyond their scope, to the extent of fully understanding God.

So in summary (from my first reply):
1. The argument that the idea of God can't be right because "I don't believe in any of the personalities I've come to see" can't be counted as valid.
That's basically the same argument behind "relationship na scam".
2. The argument that the idea of God can't be right because "I don't fully understand any of the personalities that I've come to see" can't be counted as valid.
That's almost the same thing like saying a black hole isn't real because I can't see it. By mere definition I wasn't meant to be able to see it.
By mere definition we weren't supposed to fully understand the decision of an entity who's supposedly infinitely more intelligent than ourselves.

All these come in after acknowledging that there's good possibility for a God, and then we're trying to see which one fits our measurements

I know it feels pointless saying most of these things because according to you, you're not in any of these categories.
Just thought to restate it, it's where most of the "atheists" I've encountered approach the arguments from.

Let me state my stance again as an atheist.
Since I do not really know how the universe came about, I'm open to all kinds of possibilities, including the possibility that some supernatural entity did it (though I'm not persuaded this is the case). Now because I was raised in a Christian home, the god I grew up to know is the biblical god, the God of Isaac, Jacob and Abraham. And based on the stories and accounts recorded in the bible about what this god did and said, I was not convinced this biblical god is real. Realising that the biblical god is perhaps the best among all the various gods people believe in, my rejection of the biblical god invariably led to the rejection of all the other (known) gods, thereby making me essentially an atheist.

So as you have rightly noted, the points you are raising (which are sensible by the way) do not really apply to me. If there is something that created the universe (and there ought to be), I believe the nature of such creator might be completely beyond what our limited mind/intellect can grasp. But I maintain that the biblical god CANNOT be this ultimate creator.

Dtruthspeaker:
I can argue here that you do not exist from here to eternity and you can never prove it. I just did it to your brother in atheism on Saturday and till today he cannot prove that a car exists.

So it's not about grounds of argument but a matter of your personal disposition which does not even need a ground to fly. So you people are talking rubbish.

And when you accuse Him of blood thirstyness I hope you are enjoying these days that killings and dies are easy and you are not complaining that the killings are too much. And so it is ok if you are blessed with it.

You might need to make your point more clearly and logically before I respond to it.

MaxInDHouse:
The Bible God!

So who are the true worshippers ?

MaxInDHouse:
The highlighted often amuse me because most of you never studied the Bible with the true worshipers of the Author!

Who are you referring to ?

PulsingPurple:
It's a long read as well. You can also look up the title above on YouTube to watch a video (from Redeemed Zoomer) with these (better) explanations instead.

This one will be a bit different.
Plenty (if not most) of the arguments for atheism are structured as a confrontation to the Christian God, so the responses to these questions are also included at once.

The bolded is true. And I think that's largely because the biblical god has become the most popular of all the numerous gods out there. Furthermore, there's a book, the bible, that's purported to contain accounts of the deeds and words of this god, providing disprovable grounds to argue for or against the realness or existence of such an entity. Through the omniscience and omnipotence qualities often attributed to it, the biblical god also comes the closest to what might "make sense" for a creator of the universe to be like. In a way, if it can be established that the biblical god is not real, then we can safely say that none of the other gods can be real!

I was raised in a Christian home, but as a result of the stupid and evil things that were recorded God did (and said) in the bible, as well as the ridiculousness of the idea of heaven and hell, I couldn't see the biblical god as real let alone as the creator of the universe. And because I can't find a better replacement for the biblical god, I ended up an atheist.
Since we are yet to fully grasp existence (the cause and the purpose of it), I'm all for the possibility that there could be some entity out there that actually created the universe, but I'm convinced it's not the blood-thirsty, tribalistic monster talked about in the bible.

Magnetic010:
Great singer but not so great a person- back in the day he loved women maybe a little too much for a "man of God". I hope all that has changed now sha

I'm curious, how did you get to know about this ?

JessicaRabbit:
Fair enough, and I totally get your point. Like I told you before, I'm working towards doing my best to keep things short and nice. My biggest worries in any conversation is being misunderstood or being seen as unclear or careless with words, hence I find myself prone to over-explanations and/or prevaricating over things until they get too verbose or lost in the conversation. Comprehensive persuasion has always been imperative for me and I'm also obsessed with bulletproofing arguments, if that makes sense.



You'll have to pardon me there because the sentiments are frankly very similar, and that's why I have felt the need to address in general. Many, if not all anti-AI brigades (overt or covert), often stem from the very same unfounded presuppositions or expectations, as I will try to demonstrate shortly. Nonetheless, if I have offended you with my categorization, then I duly apologize.



But I have already reiterated that I wasn't using it to brainstorm for replies! And I'm sure this might make me sound naive or disingenuous -- as I am honestly yet to see any evidence to the contrary -- but as far as I know, ChatGPT is actually terrible when it comes to intellectual debates. I know because I've tried it! It repeats itself endlessly and often makes stuff up. It says some interesting things from time to time, but it's often common knowledge that's already available on the internet. ChatGPT lacks true soul or creativity, so 100% dependence on it would be senseless in all honesty, and I posit that only people who lack critical thinking skills will take everything ChatGPT says wholesale without a single grain of salt. In such case, it's arguably more convenient for someone like me to just read a study I've downloaded in PDF from Google Scholar, note or memorize the important parts, and present the findings here in a debate. It's far more convenient for me. The only reason ChatGPT sounds so convincing and enticing is because of the way it plays with words, and that's the aspect of it I always find interesting. It's better than the most elegant human wordsmith, and it's also so grammatically and structurally astute. That's the only thing truly enticing about it, the rest is just filler. ChatGPT is not going to solve world cancer or brainstorm Nigeria's way out of international debt. There might be AI designed specifically for that in the future, but ChatGPT itself -- along with all its many variants (Gemini, Copilot, Grok etc.) -- is simply a local language model (LLM). It can generate short essays about various subjects or facts, but that's about it. And speaking of facts, they're concepts that are entirely independent of the vehicle that carries them. With all due respect, I think it's dumb to be disappointed about the source of information, especially if that piece of information can be verified independent of the source, and has no direct ties to the source. 2+2 = 4, and that's indisputable in classic mathematics. It doesn't matter whether I calculate it with my head or a calculator, or whether I calculate it with my hand but I use a pencil or an ink pen. And this is precisely where I think you -- and others who share similar views with you -- miss the plot. Does the fact that AI can produce coherent arguments diminish or detract from the merit of the argument or ideas themselves? I think if you can answer this question, you'll start to see why I think your anti-AI stance, as you've elucidated here from your own subjective standpoint, is fundamentally ridiculous. In case you can't see it yet, I'll spell it out: People like you are more worried about the human behind the argument, and not the argument itself. And this is actually a very poor way to approach scholarly debates because it's easy to resort blindly to ad hominem tactics this way. For me, the biggest indicator of intelligence is the ability to connect dots and patterns to build up to a solid, indisputable point. I personally respect a guy who reads debates online and knows the exact websites or articles to copy from and disprove my argument soundly and accurately without having to go back a second time, than a guy who argues from his head but doesn't even know what he's talking, or can't go three seconds without committing blatant logical fallacies unwittingly.

You may disagree with me here but that's fine. We don't have to agree on everything.

You said a lot of things about chatGPT in terms of its capability that I do not agree with, but I want to focus on something I'm more interested in rather than debating what chatGPT can or cannot do. Besides, I already said I don't really care if you use AI or not so I don't see why we should continue to have this back and forth about the matter. I will just assume I'm responding to a human (I do that with chatGPT itself).

If this is the way you choose to see it, then that's okay. It's just further testament to the difference in our educational culture, or perspective towards learning. So far, I've observed that when you talk about debates, you're primarily alluding to the kind of debates we had back in secondary school, where it was a kind of sport. I'm very aware that those debates were structured like a contest where the winner gets an award, but I'd argue that it was structured that way because of the school setting. In theory, I believe those rewards were simply meant to encourage the students to improve their oratory skills, as well as their knowledge on a particular topic. I can back up this belief by pointing to the fact that such rewards don't exist in higher level debates. Take the theological debates that happen between secularists and religionists for example. There often isn't any winner declared between both parties. It often just ends with members of the audience asking questions and then the crowd just dissipates and returns individually to their regularly scheduled programmes. That's exactly how debates are here in Nairaland too. Nobody is really keeping score and everyone leaves with his own belief on who won. And even these debates don't happen out of the blue. They're planned in advance and the debaters often prepare extensively using information and data before they show up. They don't just say things from their heads. They test their ideas against each other using facts and information. So I don't agree with your performative description of intellectual debate, because to me it sounds, well,... performative. You make it sound like debates are just an avenue to make yourself look good and make your opponent look bad. Of course I can understand how you see it as trying to win or avoid losing, but at the end of the day, the biggest winners to me are the audience because they can gain a lot through the exchange or experience. They may even change positions if they're confronted with enough superior evidence or reasons. Just because there's an adversarial structure inherent to formal debates doesn't relegate truth-seeking to irrelevancy.

My whole point about the distinction between debate and discussion is that debates often take the form of a competition where the opponents essentially display their intellectual superiority over each other. Under such atmosphere, most people will find it difficult to concede their opponent's stated truth or fact. Maybe this is not really what debate is meant to be, but most time when I observe people engage in debates/arguments, especially heated ones, that is what I observe. So essentially this seems like a game where the person who is able to come up with the more forceful arguments wins. And I think the back and forth about this arose from my stating that using AI can help with such forceful arguments, giving you unfair advantage over your opponent (a stand you vehemently disagree with).
But I guess we can go on with our discussion without having to revisit this, since I've made it clear I'm not interested in a debate but a discussion (where I can easily and happily agree with you when you make excellent points).

To be honest, I'm not particularly active anymore, at least not as much as I was in 2020 during the pandemic. Many other hobbies and interests have commandeered my attention recently. When it comes to chess, I'm mostly just a spectator now. I may go back to playing competitively in the future, but for now... meh.

Perhaps you can let me know anytime you feel like playing some games, as long as you promise not to use AI assistance (joke intended o ). I play on lichess.

Yes, that may be true. But you're also exposing the flaws of your opponent's arguments to benefit the understanding of everyone else (the audience). That's why I said debates aren't a zero-sum game like chess, because there is potential for everyone to gain something, including your opponent. And like I just said some paragraphs ago, there's really no objective winner at the end of a serious high-level intellectual debate. It always ends arbitrarily, with the conclusion left open to interpretation by the audience to decide for themselves who won. You might say William Lane Craig won, and I'll argue that Sam Harris washed him. But in chess, nobody is going to foolishly argue against Magnus' victory and say that he lost after he just delivered a checkmate or after his opponent resigns on his/her own accord. The results are fixed, and "winning" is definitively measurable in chess. Again, this is just another instance of us having different cultural approaches to debate, for better or worse. For me, it's truth seeking and establishing knowledge about reality. For you, maybe it's about the tactics and showmanship.

Well I can argue that it's possible to setup a debate such that a clear winner also emerges, by having a way to measure the intellectual soundness of your own arguments as well as how logically you counter your opponent's arguments.
But there's an important point to note here. Just like winning against an opponent in chess doesn't mean you have played the best chess that could be played, but simply that you have played better than your specific opponent in a particular game. Likewise in a debate/argument, being able to make an argument that your specific opponent couldn't refute doesn't mean your argument is irrefutable, because another opponent (perhaps someone intellectually superior or more knowledgeable) could have effortlessly provided sound counter argument.

I find it quite amusing how you can say all these things and decide to be jealous of the Christians? Lol, If anything, given what you've rightfully observed here, you should be brimming with overwhelming pity for them, because they're far beyond the realm of ignorance, and deep into tragic self-delusions, reinforced by high steel walls of cognitive dissonance. I mean, these guys derive their joy from elaborate fantasies that are not only demonstrably false but worse still, prevent them from honestly and wilfully enjoying the world as it is. Their religious dogma and bigotry has shut them out from exploring the beauty of the universe and unending complexity of the full human experience. Some of the strict fundamentalists among them, especially those living in the U.S Bible Belt, have deliberately shut themselves out from interacting with the real world. How can you possibly be jealous of these types of people, lol?

I must admit that my jealousy of Christians is narrowly based on the moments when they appear to be deeply blissful and joyous in worship, and the ignorant hope they have of a life beyond this world. I didn't quite consider the burdens and encumbrances that come with religious beliefs.
But now that you raised this point, could you mention some ways atheists/unbelievers live or enjoy a better life ?

Lol, it's arguably much worse. We're talking about the anti-vaxxers. The people who deny climate change. The people who'll run to the church altar when a family member is sick instead of getting immediate and responsive health care. The people who witch-hunt LGBTQ+ and deny them their free will. Where do we even begin? Lol, ask Galileo. These are people who will willingly attack and boycott any scientific research as long as it doesn't cater to their infantile beliefs. My dear, universal religious fundamentalism is going to be a million times worse. If people are willing to put "divine revelation" on the same pedestal as rigorous scientific investigation, do you have any idea how many people will wilfully be taken in by deceitful charlatans and conspiracy theorists over spurious, unfounded nonsense? Much more than there are now, that's for sure.

The problem with this paragraph is that you seem to be arguing based on the unstated assumption that atheists are more morally bankrupt than Christians, and it's bizarre how anyone would realistically believe that after learning about stuff like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the KKK. Hell, I'm even going too far... Read the Bible! God repeatedly commits acts of genocide, infanticide and whatnot. I've said this elsewhere but morality supersedes any religion or theological predisposition. We have serial killers that are atheist. We have those that are Christians, and so on.

I'm quite aware of the numerous atrocities that were committed (and still being committed) in the name of religion, albeit extreme religious beliefs. But don't you think people will still fight wars and engage in all kinds of evil in the absence of religion ? What is to stop an atheist also from destroying an entire nation if he has the power and a "good reason" to do it ?
Don't you even give any credit to religion, especially Christianity, at all ? Remember that most of the oldest schools in Nigeria were missionary schools.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to loathe religious people intensely and I don't expect this to be the attitude of someone who is really reasonable. We all came to the world without any idea of what it is all about. Before you know it, you're indoctrinated into a religion (depending on which family you happen to be born into). Because of how our psychology works (which is no one's fault), most people are stuck in such religion. Some of us for different reasons reject the religion and move on with our lives. So hating religious people or seeing them as fools doesn't make sense to me.

As I've already noted, morality does not depend on your religious affiliation or lack of it . That being said, I believe a godless society will place more emphasis on humanistic and/or utilitarian values that will ultimately enhance the standard of living for everyone because I doubt godless researchers will bother to waste resources on religiously-motivated pseudoscience. They also won't be constrained by pressures of theological conformity that may limit the extent of things they can research. As I said earlier, there'll be no sacred cows.

At the bolded, I partly agree with that and that's actually why I am not hopeful a godless society will necessarily be a better than one where gods are worshipped. If people cannot strive harder to live a better, more righteous life despite being told and believing that there's heaven and hell as reward and punishment for good and bad people respectively, then it's difficult (for me) to imagine how a godless society would be better.

DeepSight:
Thank you. You have actually touched on what I believe to be the "suitable explanation" which I referred to earlier. But it has little to do with evolution and something to do with the stimulus you mentioned . That's what I was waiting for people to put their finger on, but most kept huffing and puffing about natural selection.

At the bolded, I think the way an organism responds to specific stimulus will be a consequence of some evolutionary processes, especially if that response is more or less automatic.

Having said that, there still remains mysteries in this instinctive behaviour. True, a pup may feel a pang of hunger and seek to satisfy it. That is stimulus. What no one mentioned so far is that it has a nose and may smell that breast and it's contents. So it has come equipped to detect the possible source from which it may assuage that stimulus. A similar explanation may suffice for the turtle.

Of course, it makes sense that evolution would have equipped an organism with appropriate biological endowment and capabilities to respond efficiently to a stimulus, especially when its survival crucially depends on the response to the stimulus.

However the reason I cited multiple examples is because when taken together it still seems that something else is at work. Let us look at the instinctive climb of the marsupial to its mother's pouch for example. It is just born. It knows nothing. And yet it begins to head for a pouch which it could not logically know of. Yet it heads for it and ensconces itself there. This behaviour is very hard to explain.

Even harder to explain is the behaviour of Salmon, which I articulated in the first page of this thread.

I am not here to say "God did it" because while I believe in the existence of God (quite different from the usual or Abrahamic definition though) I don't believe that God directly created this world. What I do however detect is the influence of some programming in all of these things, a definite pattern which is beyond the randomness that some suggest and which also beats the explanations suggested by the Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection all too often.

It seems we actually reason alike. While I know science can explain to a large extent how many natural phenomena work or operate, the deeper question of why such phenomena exist at all is often hard to answer. I also do not believe in the god of the bible (and by extension other popular gods) simply because of the stupid and evil things the biblical god did, which I cannot imagine the same being that created this universe to have done. I essentially see the stories in the bible as fables made up by some people for whatever reason.
But while I don't believe in biblical god, I do think there's something really complex and unfathomable behind the existence of the universe. When I think about how vast the tiny part of the universe that is observable to us is, it's hard for me to attribute it all to some mindless big bang and evolution. While big bang and evolution may explain the how to some extent, they do not satisfactorily tell us the why. Why does anything exists at all ?
Realising that the sun is about a million times bigger than earth, that there are hundreds of billions of such sun (stars) in a single galaxy (with each sun potentially having its own solar system with possibility of having planets with life around it, perhaps life as complex or possibly more complex than life on earth), and that there are trillions of such galaxies in a tiny portion of the universe is extremely mind-blowing. And if there are trillions of galaxies (this is established scientifically), who is to say there aren't quadrillions of universes ?
So I agree with you that beyond our simplistic big bang theory and evolution, there could be something much bigger going on that we may never get to understand fully !

DeepSight:
I believe there are logical answers, even scientific ones. However I find the set of answers most present me with unsatisfactory.

Note that I said this -



The word "inexplicable" which I used. By that I simply meant pretty hard to explain and in some instances perhaps almost impossible, with current scientific knowledge.

I would be interested in your take, thanks.
Good morning.

Good morning to you too.

The scientific and logical explanation for the instincts you consider as inexplicable will certainly require some expertise in evolutionary biology and genetics. I'm not an expert in any biology related field, but I do know some science, and more importantly I'm a rational thinker, so I may still have a few things to contribute.

I think there are four important factors about evolution which when understood can help get a general idea of how the phenomenon operate (without getting into specific details): variation, inheritance, selection and time.
Variation tells us that individual organism within a population can exhibit different physical and physiological traits in reaction to the environment. Inheritance is about organisms being able to pass certain heritable traits to their offsprings. Selection tells us that individuals with certain heritable traits which are advantageous to their survival are likely to be the ones who survive and therefore pass such advantageous traits to their offspring in the process, so that eventually the advantageous traits become dominant among the organism population, with the less advantageous traits dying out gradually. Finally the time factor make us know that over generations (which could be thousands or millions of years) the accumulation of small advantageous traits leads to marked changes in the overall characteristics of the organism population, so that a different species of organism is essentially produced after a sufficiently long period.
While there are many details to consider and certainly many questions to ask, but if you put these four factors/principles together, they provide a logical framework and explanation for the diversity (and similarity) of organisms we see today.

Having provided a simple summary of the principle of evolution, let's now proceed to address your "inexplicable" instincts.
It seems to me that perhaps the most important thing you need to understand is how instinct work generally. I stand to be corrected, but I think most instincts work through some sort of biological stimulus that push us to attain a certain physical or biological state. Take hunger or sex for instance, these instincts basically use our biological processes to create stimulus that we then have to respond to. We usually do not feel comfortable until we have responded to the stimulus.

Can you already see how there could be some internal biological disturbance (stimulus) that forces a new born tortoise to seek a particular environment in order for the stimulus to be satisfied? Or how a puppy is stimulated to seek something to suck on so as to feel relieved?

Everyday247:
You did not need to go this far.

You should have just pointed it out as the typical god of gaps argument.

This is just my take though.

Well, I'm just trying to know what he stands for so I can engage him accordingly.
I haven't properly gone through the thread, so I don't know if he attempts to use any god to fill the gap of human knowledge.

DeepSight:
LordReed -

What tells newly born puppies to look for the breasts of a mother they have never seen and still cant see?
What tells new born turtles born on a beach to head to the sea once hatched?

Tell me.

On this thread, I intend to cite many examples of inexplicable instinct - inexplicable if the strict materialist random and evolutionary wordview holds true.

FreeIgboho / Wirinet / Plaetton

By describing such instincts as "inexplicable", is that based on your own ignorance of what the explanation is or are you making a claim that the instincts cannot be explained by anyone ?
Are you trying to come to a logical understanding of the underlying processes (physical, biological and chemical) behind such complex instincts or you've already concluded that there is no plausible explanation and want to make a point out of that conclusion ?
Have you tried to make findings on what relevant experts have to say about the "inexplicable" instincts or you are more interested in what Nairalanders (many of whom most likely know little about evolutionary biology and genetics) have to say ?
While many natural phenomena are clearly complex to understand, do you believe it is possible to gain some scientific, logical understanding of such phenomena and do you believe that scientists have already made a lot of progress in understanding the universe we live in ?

Your answers to the questions above will guide how I engage with the thought-provoking topic you have created.

jaxxy:
Does he have to create a new political party?? I think it's unnecessary even though I understand his reasons.

Musk should face his businesses and stop getting overly involved In politics unless he plans to contest elections which he can't.

Musk is a very ambitious individual, always aiming for things most other people dare not dream about !
He is already extremely successful in business, so he is looking for other ambitions to challenge himself with. With hundreds of billions of dollars at his disposal to spend as he wishes, there's no telling what a determined Musk can accomplish !

Watch the video below and give your honest opinion about it


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H16GBjvB3D4

Now what do you think ?

flexyrule:
Great story.

I borrowed one contractor a sizeable amount of money three years ago.

We had an agreement that he would pay back after 3 months.

The transaction was done based on the trust and personal guarantee of a senator, DOF and a well-recognised political figure.

The man defaulted on the loan and at some point clearly said that he won't pay back.

I petitioned the office of the IG, I wrote to ICPC, even the minister that signed the contract was aware of the matter... The man refused to pay!

Now talking about juju... Baba, there's no juju that this case didn't enter their shrine. From East to West, South to North. I have boys that just one phone call, they will run sh*t for me without ecen asking for a penny. Even that cross River state sef, men visited two places... Shi shi no fall out.

Las Las... I did a petition to the EFCC and they recovered part of the money for me...

I won't say juju doesn't exist or isn't potent, yeah, back in the days, I saw anti-metal work..

But mehn... After my ordeal with that contractor... I stopped believing that those things work.

It's my opinion though... Based on personal experience.

Anyway... best wishes to you and your cousin.

JuJu most probably doesn't exist. Many things people attribute to JuJu are just natural phenomena (which science can explain to some extent), some are just lies told by juju priests to get patronage, while others are false stories spread around and believed by gullible people who cannot think critically and ask questions.

mightyhaze:
How did u know an animal existed 182.5 million years ago?


Them go tell u carbon dating,half life and all that shii

There are plenty of fossil records which are direct remains of extinct animals. Radiometric dating proves some fossils are millions of years old.
The same science that's applied to know this is what is applied in some amazing technologies that we use everyday, like being able to instantaneously talk to anyone in any part of the world. So would you rather trust science or believe the stories in a book written thousands of years ago, a book that tells us the Sun was created after the earth and that a woman was made out of a man's rib

JessicaRabbit:
Once again, I will apologize in advance if this response ends up being too long or verbose for your tastes. This is what I sound like when I'm not using my AI proofdesk to quicken things up, so you'll have to bear with me. Over time, I'll learn to try and keep things short, but for now this is the best I can do.

It's apparent you know so much, so you always have so much to say to justify your position/points. I prefer brevity though. Just make your argument clearly and logically without too much story (especially when the argument is presented in writing).

But first, I'll start by challenging you to present the evidence that I've generated my latest response with AI, since you've subtly hinted at it here again at the start of your second response, despite me repeatedly stating that I don't use it any longer, and why I used it back then when I did. And I know you tried to be clever by encasing your allegations in parentheses, but I know scandal-phishing and fake tea when I see it. You guys should put your money where your mouth is for once and pull up with fresh, new receipts instead of these tired, months-old redundancies that I've already trashed and discarded. By the way, I'm aware that I usually rub people off the wrong way because I often make remarks that I feel are precise and objective without recourse to sentiments, emotions, or other personal factors. But at the end of the day, I mean what I say. And I appreciate others when they do the same for me, provided they don't have to lie or poison the well to make themselves look morally superior.

At the bolded, I will appreciate if you address me as an individual based on what I specifically say, rather than lumping me together in the same group with some other folks you've had encounters with.
You see, personally I don't care so much if you use AI assistance or not. I was just disappointed when I found out you had been using AI in your debates. The first time I came across your post, I was really impressed that there's a Nairalander that could write so beautifully while expressing intelligent point. And it is on that basis that I have been following and reading your posts. If I knew it was AI that was doing the job, I wouldn't have been as impressed cos I'm quite familiar with what chatGPT is capable of. It's like the feeling you get when you watch a human perform complex mental maths compared to when a computer or calculator does the same thing!

To be honest with you, I read your latest comments and realized unfortunately, that in a couple of ways, you may exemplify part of the problem I have with general discourse on this site. Take for example, your suggestion that debate is a game like chess. I'm sorry my dear, but any true intellectual debate is 100%, without a shadow of doubt, NOT a game! I don't even know why you'd say something like that. This is exactly what I'm talking about: everyone on this forum thinks that a debate must be a zero-sum game with objective win conditions like chess where there's a winner and there's a loser, but what nobody talks about is the actual substance of the debate. I don't do debate to win. I do debate to search for knowledge. I do debate to discover truths, to see what makes other people tick, to pick their brains, to see how they handle information and facts and connect the dots to make a logically consistent argument, to see how they react to contrary evidence and if they're honest enough to admit when they're wrong. That's the element of real debate that makes it a scholarly engagement: exchanging ideas and sharing knowledge (not fantasies, mind you). You think I always enjoy having to call people out for being dumb or intellectually destitute? You think I enjoy going back and forth with jokers like Dtruthspeaker who constantly makes stuff up, contradicts himself and then tells all sorts of lies to make sure he "wins" an argument? Alright, let's take it for granted that debates are a game. What would even be the objective win condition in a debate if nothing is learned at the end of the day?

What I said was that "debate is akin to a game". Here is what I meant when I said that:
When people engage in a debate, the implicit goal is for the opposing sides to corroborate and substantiate their own arguments , while simultaneously refuting and rebutting the opponent's argument. So it is not so much about the truth as it is about who can present more convincing and forceful arguments. This is why winning a debate is not just about your points, but also how you present the points. And this is why I will insist again that using AI assistance will clearly give you some advantage over your opponent as your presentation will be more superb .
When the purpose is to really learn something from the other person, I prefer to refer the the interaction as a discussion rather than a debate. When a conversation takes the form of a debate, the opposing parties will generally try to hold on to their preconceived notions and beliefs about what is right/wrong and what is true/false regardless of any strong arguments the opponent presents. That is why it's usually hard to change people's mind/belief through a debate. On the other hand, if it is a discussion, we can easily find points on which we agree, freely express our uncertainties, try to listen sincerely and see things from the other person's perspective, and you're not really trying to be the one who wins the argument, also using AI assistance to polish your arguments become completely unnecessary .
I should you this opportunity to say that the sort of conversation I wish to have with you is a discussion and not a debate. Besides I don't have enough energy for certain kinds of debates again as I get older.

Anyway, let's talk about the chess you mentioned.

Do you follow GothamChess (Levy Rozman)? He's one of the biggest (if not the biggest) chess streamers and/or content creators on YouTube for the past decade or so. He's also an international master, soon to become a grandmaster. Hikaru Nakamura is probably a better example though because he's an actual grandmaster and even Magnus sees him as his biggest rival. How often do you watch their videos, hmm? Are you aware that Levy and Hikaru learn their preparation and opening lines from Stockfish AI? They memorize openings, learn variations and tactics directly from Stockfish into their games. Obviously prohibition of AI still exists during live tournaments but that's because chess relies strictly on memory and calculating under pressure. The setting is entirely different. When we talk arguments in debate, we talk about the quality of ideas and information at your disposal, not your capacity to generate them. It's all about your ideas and their logical coherence and your ability to weave them all together and form a cohesive, convincing narrative.

I'm not following GothamChess, but I've seen some of his videos. Earlier this year I watched some YouTube videos on Gukesh, the current chess champion from India, and also watched the Joe Rogan podcast with Carlson, subsequently I started seeing random chess videos in shorts, including some from GothamChess. Generally, I don't follow chess events or chess players passionately, I just love (or rather used to love 😢) to play the game and that's all. Do you play chess actively ?

You're trying to show here that chess is different from debate, but I think there are many similarities between them. Chess is about weakening your opponent's position and strengthening your own position using all the tactics and strategies your knowledge and experience afford you. This is very similar to what happens in debates: you use all your knowledge arsenal about the subject to weaken (refute) your opponent's argument and strengthen (corroborate) your own arguments.

As I told you earlier, if any of you feel some type of way over the fact that I used AI back then and that it gave me an unfair advantage, then what stops you from using AI yourself? After all, debates are a game, not so? What's holding you back? Is it the lack of resources? The lack of technical know-how? You also said and I quote: "well-structured false arguments might seem more intelligent than poorly structured true arguments". This is true! Unfortunately for you however, this doesn't detract from my point. If anything, it undermines your entire position because a well-structured false argument is still what it is: false. Anyone who isn't carried away by flair and style can easily see that. My love for colorful language is strictly my preference, but it has absolutely nothing to do with my core intelligence. We don't have to sacrifice clarity for accuracy or vice versa. We can strive for both.

What I still don't understand though is the selectivity with which you guys judge tools like AI. You're all too happy to quote excerpts and journals in a debate, but somehow you draw the line when it comes to AI. It's quite fascinating really, especially given the fact that in most cases, science journals are often ten times more reliable than an AI chatbot. I mean you're more likely to come across fresh new information with a science journal than you will with a chatbot. AI just regurgitates already existing ideas. It can't come up with new ideas. At best, it will hallucinate stuff that you can't verify or are demonstrably false. So if you want to talk about "subtly adding points", AI is arguably inferior to most other external sources like academic papers and even dictionaries because when you consult the latter, you're actually incorporating ideas and formulations that aren't yours. I mean, if you're really worried about the influence that external resources can have on the quality of an argument, then we should be more consistent with our rules, don't you think? We should stop quoting definitions from dictionaries, for instance. We may also need to stop citing YouTube videos that explain whatever argument we're making. In my personal opinion, these are even more potent, reliable contributors to a debate than an LLM or AI chatbot. Although I think the more likely truth here is that you've created a post-hoc rationalization for your hidden technophobia. I suppose for people like you and triplechoice, you'd rather see other people handicap themselves to match your preferred methods, rather than evolve or adapt to new tools that can enhance human capacity and potential. In fairness to you, this is just another chapter in human history of new technology being widely rejected because it "strips down our humanity". They did it with CGI and mobile phones as well. Nothing new to see here, I guess.

I'm already tired at this point of replying to your justification of using AI assistance to write your arguments in a debate.
You know what, just do whatever you like. I really don't care .

To answer the question in your first quote: I don't know for certain. I'm aware that most Christians tend to be utterly close-minded bigots, averse to things that are strange and unfamiliar to what they grew up with (like AI). But these faults are still a result of their cognitive bias/es as humans. Atheists are humans too - which means that we're also subject to these bias/es. We are susceptible to emotional reactions and fighting over competing interests. Basically humans are humans. And since morality precludes religion, I don't rate atheists higher than Christians or vice versa.

Nice submission 👍
In my contemplation about life, I have come to the realization/conclusion that there is no special purpose to human existence, we ultimately die like other animals and life goes on. Sometimes, this realization makes me feel sad and disheartened and I wish there were a higher purpose to our existence. On the contrary, when I go to church sometimes and I see people singing and dancing joyfully, full of hope that there's a God in heaven that cares about them and that there's a wonderful place they will go to when they die, I feel really jealous. I see no reason why I should try to convince such people that their beliefs are based on lies and falsehood. If their ignorance is making them blissful, why should I expose them to a knowledge that could make them feel hopeless ?
This got me thinking that maybe believing in a higher purpose to existence by the majority of people might actually be good for the world after all. So I love to hear what other people think about this matter.

The only thing I can guarantee in a world full of atheists is possibly more scientific breakthroughs (because critical thinking will be more valued and there will be no sacred cows in the search for knowledge), and more practical policies to reduce pain and suffering, rather than resignation and claiming certain things to be "beyond human control".

I'm also positive that an atheistic world will be more scientifically oriented, and therefore scientific breakthroughs will be more common. The issue with this however is that scientific breakthroughs are not always good for the world because of possible misuse/abuse of a technology or the accidental/unintended adverse effect it might have on the environment. Good examples are weapons of mass destruction, pollution caused by over use of fossil fuels, general environmental degradation caused by urbanisation.
And because I'm not quite sure how a godless society would be like morally and in terms of values, it's a little hard for me to predict what kinds of scientific breakthroughs we will seek.

JessicaRabbit:
I never addressed this mention properly when I first saw it, and so I'll carry out my due diligence now, as I feel obligated to point out certain concepts to you and the rest of your "you're-using-AI-therefore-you-suck!" bandwagon. But first, let me start by reminding you that you reached out to me in your last paragraph here, extending an invitation for intellectual engagement. And I accepted this invitation with my alt moniker right here:


I was curious as to why you never followed through, and usually I'd have my suspicions why you never did, as I'm quite the queen of paranoia, but I'll just assume you never saw the mention. Now, I will admit that at first, I deliberately ignored this particular mention I'm responding to today, because I simply considered this whole AI witch-hunting from you lot to be ridiculously pedestrian, particularly to the topic of this thread while I was neck deep in my debate with EmperorCaesar a.k.a DevilsEqual a.k.a CyrusVI. If I'm being truthful, I only see these critiques as a tired intellectual crutch that people are tempted to reach for invariably. It especially works wonders when they've maneuvered themselves into a corner during a debate and they desperately need a way out. It's predictable as clockwork. And it's not just me. I've been on this forum long enough to see how these games play out. People find themselves in a debate that's well above their paygrade, and when they find that they don't have any substantive rebuttals to an argument (obviously), they become forensic experts all of a sudden, digging into the texture of your person, into your past misdeeds, searching for any pretext to delegitimize the conversation, by any means necessary. Throw dirt on people's name and avoid responding to them. I would call it a waving the white flag, if the goal wasn't to poison the well and cast aspersions on the opponent to save face.

Seriously let's rub minds here, if you're willing to put your prejudice aside. What difference does it make whether my thoughts are articulated via AI refinement or through manual writing? How is it relevant to the veracity or merit of the core discussion?

I'll make it perfectly known again: every argument I present on this forum with this moniker emerges directly from my own intellect, informed by all my extensive engagement with academic literature from anywhere you can imagine (websites, textbooks, research works, Google etc.). My well of knowledge draws from years of debating philosophy, theology, cosmology, epistemology, sociology... it's innumerable. I do this, and have been doing this for years. Infact, this response I've just made to you was human written in its' entirety, just to prove a point. I can do this, with or without AI. AI just makes it faster. It's like an editorial instrument for me -- same way I use a dictionary or thesaurus to find a more befitting synonym or expression that better conveys what I intended to say.

And it's about time you guys shelved that infantile idea that AI gives advantage in debates, because it sure as hell can't. As a matter of fact, AI makes up stuff a lot. A huge chunk of what it says is not even reliable and/or entirely accurate. It's also limited in terms of the subjects it can discuss (it avoids numerous substantial discussions, particularly those centered on race, sexual assault, politics, lgbtq etc). So basically, apart from saying boring, unoriginal stuff that we've heard over and over with stylistic polish, what advantage can AI really bestow you in any debate? And if you really feel that way about AI, then what stops you and the rest of the anti-AI mob from using it?

Also, why do I have to announce my method of posting upfront, especially when I'm not plagiarizing anybody? I understand prefacing comments if the content is culled from external websites (that are obviously not yours). But AI? Lol. Going by your logic, writers should equally indicate moments where a dictionary or thesaurus was implemented. This even brings me to a broader observation I've made about the intellectual culture of Nairaland. Many of you guys here have a distressing tendency to avoid actual substance and fixate on peripheral nonsense. It's almost as if the collective attention span of the users here has been so thoroughly compromised by dopamine-driven feedback loops of social media. It's almost impossible to see sustained engagement with complex ideas on here. Most people here can't do anything better than search for scandals, rhetorical traps, sleights of hand, procedural violations, in fact anything but the kitchen sink. Anything that will afford them the liberty of not actually engaging in critical thought.

I'm just going to opine that if you're truly bothered about the supposed advantages AI assistance gives me, then nothing prevents you from using ChatGPT or any other language model yourself. Use it and articulate your own thoughts with precision and eloquence, provided your posts are logically coherent and you don't misfire. It would even help the both of us, as I personally have an eyesore for poorly written prose that is not formatted properly. Except that's not your style, or you're secretly not confident in your technological competence.

All of this reminds of my past encounters with EmperorCaesar a.k.a DevilsEqual a.k.a CyrusVI, who is often fond of suggesting that my use of English makes me out to be a manipulative bully who enjoys browbeating others. I think there's a tendency for people to harbor the strange and insecure belief that eloquence and intellectual sophistication are somehow suspect. Even in real life situations, I've noticed some people try to put others down or clown them if they have an inclination towards more technical styles of using English. Imagine my amusement when I caught you doing the exact same thing when you said I'm trying to "impress and oppress." Like, do you guys have a problem with sophistication, lol? How am I being oppressive? Because I like my posts to look structured and articulate? If you obviously feel threatened by demonstrations of superior language, then what do you think this tells me about your attitude towards intellectual competence?

Why don't you boys pick a struggle, huh? You say you admire my eloquent expression and then you're still demanding me to abandon it at the same time. If you have any profound insights you feel the need to share, then you are at liberty to present them. If you have any substantive criticisms of anything I've said so far with respect to the debate on this thread, you are also at liberty. Beyond any of that, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of these tedious meta-discussions about the aesthetics of my comments that contribute nothing to the actual topic.

I'm just seeing this mention from you today.
It is very sickening 🤢 that you had to write (or use AI to generate) everything up there just to justify your use of AI assistance in debates.
The simple fact you're missing/ignoring is that debate is not just about the points you make, the structure, organization and expression of those points are also crucial. A well structured false argument might seem more intelligent than a poorly structured true argument. It is because of this that I stated that the use of AI assistance will give you unfair advantage over your opponent, making it seem that your arguments are superior. Also, you claim AI only helps you put together the points you come up with yourself. Knowing a little about how generative AIs work and having used some of them for different tasks, I'm sure the AI will often subtly or noticeably add points that aren't exactly yours.
How would you feel if you play chess against an opponent that uses computer assistance (secretly or openly) ?
Keep in mind that debate is akin to a game!

You said a bunch of other things that I don't have the energy to start responding to. Perhaps you should endeavour to make your responses to me in the future much shorter (unless there's really something important you have to say). I see no reason why you had to rant so much about your frustration with Nairalanders in your response to me.

JessicaRabbit:
Witch-hunting and desperate scandal-phishing aside, I've grown jaded and gradually lost interest in the forum already, so I wouldn't give all the credit to triplechoice for my absence. This forum just hasn't been for me lately. Maybe it's Nairaland and the banal, mundane subject matter that people discuss here on a daily basis, or maybe I've just evolved beyond the back and forth business, especially with people who are seemingly too ignorant and primitive to even keep up in the first place. I do come back from time to time but it's mostly to sit back and read. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't always enjoy bickering and arguing endlessly. It's just something I'm forced or compelled to do whenever I come across flagrantly dishonest arguments or when I witness pompous and insufferable mediocrities who decide for some reason to pontificate on topics well beyond their intellectual pay grade. On a normal day, I'd prefer a simple, harmonious conversation where we can exchange knowledge and have a point of agreement or convergence. It's very hard though because most people here simply have no patience or respect for logic or intellectual debate. They just say stuff and pretend it's true without carrying out their due diligence and whenever I read stuff like that, it always grinds my gears. It's just how I was programmed. And that's why, as much as I've grown weary of debate, I often find myself sucked back in because I have to call out the lies and gibberish being peddled. I guess you could say I have a chip on my shoulder or something. Generally though, I've grown bored of this website. Triplechoice's tiresome prevarications just gave me more of a reason to abandon it completely. I'm not sure yet if I'm back for good, although to be frank, I'm probably not. It just bothered me that AlbertNewton was looking for a debate, piggybacking off the AI argument, and then when I reached out, he ghosted. It made me wonder why he never responded. I'm not forcing him to have the debate, but if he would have just declined, maybe I wouldn't even feel the need to say anything at all. Given the circumstances, I had to assume that he must have disengaged because of the whole AI nonsense, and that's what prompted my latest reply.

And as for triplechoice, I had to cease correspondence with him because it was becoming clear to me that he was on a mission to tarnish my character and destroy my name, even after I already admitted to using AI in previous posts, and in spite of my insistence that I never used it with TheDevilsBride. I detected his pretentiousness when I observed that he couldn't legitimately substantiate his AI accusations regarding TheDevilsBride and had to resort to guilt-by-association tactics, relying on the history of my other monikers to make his point. That's when I understood that he was just thirsty for drama, drunk and intoxicated by his own self-importance and the attention his manufactured controversy was generating. So I had to cut him off, and then block his account.

At any rate, thanks for responding to the post, even though it wasn't directly aimed towards you. As I have previously emphasized, your theological proclivities do not concern me. I don't have a problem with your belief in god/s. I'm very happy to mind my business and let every believer and non-believer go on his own merry way. If you will recall, the very first time I engaged you was when I read a comment that seemingly represented atheism. I had to comment and set the record straight and we've been on a back and forth ever since. We don't have to agree on matters concerning the existence of god/s. Reading your latest submission, I'm glad that you can at least acknowledge that I'm not in the wrong if I choose to reference journals, articles, studies, excerpts of studies, and other research materials in a debate. Obviously it would be weird if you disagreed about that since you have done the same yourself. But I'm afraid you still haven't given me a good reason why you draw the line at AI assistance, but give the green light to using dictionaries and spell checkers, research databases, and any other tool that can provide information, or even enhance how we express ourselves. Can you walk me through that logic? I know you already alluded to academic institutions rejecting AI articles, but that's because they are centered around the construction and contribution of original research and individual competency. But we're not writing dissertations here. Nobody is going to come and award us with a degree for the amateur skirmishes we engage in here on an outdated internet forum like Nairaland. Ultimately the conversations we have here are trivial. We're fighting facts with facts. Evidence with evidence. And even AI can't guarantee you correct facts and evidence. Infact, anyone who relies 100% on AI for a discussion would be a mental vegetable because AI says a bunch of nonsense that can be checked and debunked. The goal here is to force others to examine opposing views and angles. Whether this is achieved through normal conversation, traditional research, AI assistance, or even divine inspiration is monumentally irrelevant to the subject matter.

Sorry about the long riposte anyway, I simply can't help myself sometimes. My thoughts are often so scattered and jumbled up and they tend to cascade into verbose walls of texts when I write, and that's why it takes me a lot of effort to sit and draft responses. I can't guarantee you consistent engagement in any debate right now because of real life obligations and the fact that this forum does little to hold my interest or attention these days, but I'll try to engage the best that I can when I'm free. That's all.

Sorry I failed to go on with the debate, despite being the initiator 😔. I was just a little busy at the time and wasn't sure if I have the energy to engage in a text-based debate that will most certainly entail spending hours putting my thoughts to writing (a process that can be considerably mentally draining for some of us that don't use AI assistance ☹️ ). And since the planned debate (actually I prefer to see it as discussion) wasn't really that serious nor was it about a specific matter, I forgot about it eventually. Again, sorry I disappointed.

Now that it appears you're still interested in the discussion, let me open by asking you the following question that I often find myself thinking about:
Will the world become better or worse if everyone becomes an atheist, believing that there's no life after death, no hell or heaven, so no sky daddy is going to punish you for any evil you do nor reward you for your 'good' deeds ?

That is a very nice gesture.

Not enough original content
Please take a moment to write a quality post with at least 40 characters.

Almost everything in life has its merits and demerits. I believe strongly that the merits of a single term tenure for political office holders are far more than its demerits. As Makinde highlighted (using his own personal experience), a lot of time is wasted on preparing to win a second term. 5 years should be enough for anyone with great ideas to turn things around!

Nostalemate:
Audio....

chess players here i hail o.

Hi.
You want to play some games ? I play on lichess.
Username is reechy

Amotolongbo:
hmmmm

Only if her actions are centripetal and not centrifugal. Some married people exhibit their loving characters to the outsiders, opposite to what they do at home to their partners. 😭

Do you have any theory as to why some married people are "centrifugal" in their exhibition of lovingness ?

chatinent:
Hire your personal research writer!

📚 Our Services:

Research Writing Services: Master theses, dissertations, essays, or proposals—any subject, any level.
Plagiarism & AI Removal: Get Turnitin AI & Plagiarism Reports with every delivery. Guaranteed 0% AI traces and originality. ✅
Data Entry & Accounting: Flawless, secure solutions for businesses and researchers.


Advanced Data Analysis & Machine Learning:

Statistical Analysis: Regression, ANOVA, SEM, Bayesian methods, survival analysis.
Machine Learning Implementation:
🔸 Supervised Learning (SVMs, Random Forests, Neural Networks)
🔸 Unsupervised Learning (K-means, PCA, NLP)
🔸 Predictive Modeling, Deep Learning, Reinforcement Learning
Custom App Development: We design, code, and deploy ML-driven tools for your projects. 💻

Amazon KDP eBook Writing: From drafting to publishing! Polished, market-ready eBooks with compelling content and designs. 📖✨


📌 Departments We Cover:

Law (Case Studies, Legal Research, Contracts)
Mathematics (Theoretical/Applied Math, Stats, Calculus)
English (Literature Reviews, Creative Writing, Editing)
Computer Science (AI, Algorithms, Software Development)
Management Sciences (Operations, HR, Project Management)
STEM (Engineering, Physics, Chemistry)
Social Sciences (Psychology, Sociology, Economics)
Business & Finance (Market Analysis, Reports, Dissertations)
…and every niche in between! 🌍


🔍 Why Partner With Us?

✅ Subject-Specific Experts: PhDs, industry pros, and developers in every field.
✅ End-to-End Solutions: From concept to coding to publication—we handle it all.
✅ 100% Confidentiality: NDAs, encrypted files, zero data sharing. 🔒
✅ Rush-Friendly: Need it yesterday? We deliver quality at lightning speed. ⚡




Your success story starts here—original, innovative, and unstoppable. 💥

🔒 Privacy Assured | 📊 Turnitin/AI Reports | 💻 Custom Code & Apps | 📖 Amazon KDP Pros

#AcademicWriting #MachineLearning #PlagiarismFree #AmazonKDP #LawThesis #DataScience #ConfidentialityMatters #PhDResearch #StudentLife #EbookPublishing


📩 Contact Us Today!
Transform your ideas into reality with a team that never compromises.
📧 Email: yourwriterofficial@gmail.com

Visit our website to contact us on WhatsApp here: http://www.yourresearchwriter.com.ng/?m=1

Or scanning QR code below.

It's obvious AI is already making it very difficult for you to get client

I think the Solution Fun City is a nice initiative: a revenue source for the government and a fun and relaxation center for the people.

chris51:
I believe you. These politicians have no integrity. They are morally bankrupt

Yes, just like a typical Nigerian.