₦airaland Forum

Whatever happens to a goat, a chicken, an ant, a tree, a flower etc after death is the exact same thing that happens to a human after death.

ivolt:
Have you wondered why people are leaving Anglican and other traditional churches
in droves to the so-called John 3:16 if they are so perfect?

Even in the Oyibo countries, these traditional churches are being
closed down every year because attendees keep leaving in droves.

So why do some christians prefer "thief" churches, don't you find that interesting?

The orthodox churches are more concerned about purity, spirituality and are "heaven-focused", which don't quite appeal to a lot of people. The Pentecostals on the other hand use the promise of prosperity to deceive the people. It turns out that the vast majority of people are indeed gullible!

JessicaRabbit:
I'm not bothered about "falling your hand", and I'm definitely not seeking validation from you or anyone else.



Maybe you should see my recent responses to Negroid001 partially addressing this complaint. As for your claim that I'm "trading insults", I can totally understand how or why you may see it that way, but I'm afraid I have not insulted anyone here unprovoked. Note the word I qualified my assertion with. If you truly feel that I have done so, I would invite you to quote a passage from everything I've written here to prove your point.

There's a world of difference between dishing out unnecessary insults and criticizing someone's poor behavior. I know you're smart enough to understand what I'm talking about. I said it before, and I will maintain my position: I only make conclusions about people based on their pattern of logical thinking. If I suspect that you're incapable of stringing arguments in a coherent order to prove your point, or you're too quick to dish out ad hominems in a debate, I can only conclude that you're inept at having matured and reasoned logical discussions. It's not an insult. If it looks like a monkey, and acts like a monkey, then pray tell, what else would it be?



Lol, please. You must be new to the internet.😂

This is base level human psychology. If you carefully followed this discussion from its starting point to this very moment, you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. StillDtruth's excessive use of emojis in every response is actually the single most damning evidence that he has a very fragile ego, which has been shattered to pieces in this thread. He came to me, pretending to be a rational codiscussant. Observe his tone and temperament when he first quoted me and compare it to his responses now. When I started to poke holes in his feeble argument, he started to crumble.

Compare the two paragraphs below from StillDtruth

Exhibit #1
"Evidence, Logic, sound reason, all dictate that co debators must argue on the issue of the debate, So, this is you,.moving from topic to topic all because you could not reasonably attend to the issue on point, so you atheist shift the post as you have now done in complaining about contradictions and inaccuracies whereas, we are waiting on you to attend to nostra and prophecies. In violation of logic, reason and evidence."

Exhibit #2
"Firing more and more insalts because all her stupid Lies and desperate tricks and insalt did not work 😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆
Now, she shows she is the devil's wife as t is only lies and insalts she is able to produce. 😆😆😆😆
So no brilliancy is expected from Miss Loser, the Super Liar, the Bullyiana, 😆😆😆.😆😆😆"

If you can't see the clear dissonance in composure and temperament here, then I don't know what else to tell you. His antics here have been nothing but transparent attempts to mask his lack of substance with a cacophony of forced hilarity, so I find your assertion that he is having fun here quite amusing. Do you suppose that flooding the thread with an absurd number of laughing emojis inspires the demeanor of someone who's confident and emotionally stable?

The only thing I see here is a weak loser overcompensating for his low self-esteem and lack of intellectual substance. It's almost as If he is trying to drown out the sound of his own emptiness with a deafening chorus of artificial laughter. How is this authentic to you?



Addressing this point would be tantamount to me repeating a point I've made abundantly clear in this very same thread. Please see my responses to Negroid001 to get a better understanding of why I persist in these kinds of situations.



To be frank, I don't exactly appreciate your subtle attempts to police my responses or prescribe to me how I ought to engage with users on a public forum. That's entirely my choice and my business.



From the moment I started using this forum up until now, various people have had various sorts of opinions about me, my personality, my argumentative methods etc. Ultimately, how people choose to perceive me on an anonymous chat forum isn't something I ever lose any sleep over.

It's alright o ✌️

JessicaRabbit:
Phew! You're not even trying to hide the fact that you've got nothing left in your arsenal. Yes, I'm feeling like a bully because it's clear that I'm dominating this discussion and everyone knows this. Everyone except you, of course, because we all know you're thicker than two short planks. It's as simple as that. It's not an insult. It's just a simple fact that has been established after observing your posts and patterns of logical thinking. I don't think any rational mind would read a post from you here and not come to the conclusion that you are a few screws loose. You sound so stupid to the point people might assume you're mentally ill. I'm sorry to say that, but I prefer to be honest and factual.

You're really really falling my hand, JessicaRabbit 😢.
I did not expect you to allow this fellow to drag you to the level of trading insults with him, over and over again. From the abnormally large number of laughing emojis he includes in his replies, I can tell he's having a good time engaging you in such derogatory banter. Or perhaps you're enjoying this too 🤔, because I would have expected you to stop replying him several replies ago, when the arguments turned to insults.
Not that it really matters to me how you spend your time here, but I see this as a waste of valuable energy on a nonentity. And maybe, as I sometimes suspect based on the seeming impeccability of the grammatical composition of your post and the thoroughness of your logic, you're using some sort of AI assistance to generate your responses, in which case I will assume you're having fun doing this too.

Malista:
Okay.
Nigerian Politician are men filled with Greed. Always running upandan for their own selfish interests

Do you think you will do better if you were a politician and elected into a political office ?

Hezzyluv:
Your own even beta sey you see Okada do. I.e, you get steady daily savings. Ask those graduates who doesn't have work and can't stoop low to ride Okada how hunger dey arrange them.

Lolz 😂. But it seems to me that you're talking from personal experience

Zxcvbnmghtr:
The bitter Truth is, men are not smart. It is too easy to manipulate them, honestly.

No, men are smart, it's just that they have a weakness when it comes to pvssy matter.

Mumben:
God please save these innocent kids

Shouldn't he have prevented the building from collapsing on them in the first place ?

MaxInDHouse:
What this man said is simple and practical.

You shouldn't depend on anointing oil pour on your head by pastors to help fight sexual urges rather you should put up a fight against it always begging God to help you succeed! Romans 7:14-25

What really is "anointing" ?
How can we verify someone has anointing on their head ?
What is anointing useful for when one has it ?
Why is anointing powerless when it comes to fighting sexual urges ?

JessicaRabbit:
I'm still waiting to see you provide actual evidence for the God you believe in.

What sort of evidence will convince you of the existence of a God?

ivolt:
If the bold continuously happens, people will stop paying ransom in the long run.

And when people don't pay ransom again, kidnapping will no longer be a lucrative venture 🤔

Peterobiisathie:
IPOBidients are in severe pains

I think with the current state of the country's economy, you should be more concerned about the severe pains your hungry father and mother are going through.
I hope you know that Tinubu doesn't send your father nor mother. If they like, they can die hungry.
It is idiọts like you that have made the politicians to keep treating us like shit over the years.
Instead for us to see how to join hands together to make the country progress and ensure everyone lives a good life, your concern is IPOBIdients. You're so disgusting to me.

eepeepook:
She’ll go back to him. Women love these types of men.

There's a term for that actually, it's called masochism

Seefinish:
Is it by force to eat eggs?
Here in the north, some northerners are using awara in place of meat and fish. I have eaten it and I can testify it makes sense.

The message in the post isn't about egg or any particular product. It's about how the prices of different commodities are likely to become excessively higher when the minimum wage is increased by 3 fold

JessicaRabbit:
It's quite simple, actually. All you need is empathy and reason. The only way we can truly promote inclusivity is by understanding the experiences and perspectives of other people, as well as critically evaluating the impact of actions and behaviors, separating the harmful from the harmless. As for how I determine when a behavior crosses the line, I posit that these are the most important questions to answer: (1) Does the behavior cause significant harm to individuals or groups, either physically, emotionally, or psychologically? (2) Are all the parties involved in the behavior consenting adults, capable of making informed decisions about their own lives and bodies?, and (3) Is there any way in which this behavior violates the unwritten rules of social cooperation, undermining trust, respect, and the common good?



Do you propose that we must condemn every natural phenomenon that doesn't fit our narrow moral mold? Should we start "curing" people of their tendency towards anger or greed, since those are natural human emotions that can lead to harmful behavior? The only defect that exists here is the one in our understanding and acceptance of human diversity. Homosexuality has been a natural part of human experience since forever, so I don't see how it's reasonable to term it as a defect.



You've only just come out to repeat the same question the other guy asked, so I will invite you to go back and read my previous post more carefully. But for what it is worth, I support whatever consenting adults choose to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others. Ultimately, it's none of my business. Although, incest is one of those situations where there can be complications, both emotionally and genetically if there is a child.



Detestable is a telling choice of words, and it implies a moral judgment, or a value statement. And that's exactly the issue here. While individuals are free to hold their own personal beliefs and values, we must distinguish between personal opinions and objective human rights. The fact that many people may find homosexuality detestable does not justify discrimination, prejudice, or denial of fundamental rights. We've been down this road before, and history has shown us that moral condemnation and persecution of minority groups is a dangerous and harmful path.

For what it's worth, my questions were simply to help me understand the rationale and reason for your support of homosexuality clearly. And in particular, the questions you posited as the three most important to ask to determine when a behaviour crosses the line really helped me understand your position thoroughly and properly. Your answers to my other questions could be predicted easily based on these.

However, while I find your defence of homosexuality very rational and reasonable, it's still a bit hard for me to empathize with homosexuals (and I will say that I'm very empathetic normally). Even though I am irreligious, I still feel there's something wrong (maybe not harmful) about two people of the same sex fücking. I see homosexuals as probably suffering from some sort of sexual/psychological disorder.

JessicaRabbit:
Thanks for letting us know what makes you squirm. Disgust is an interesting human emotion, but it shouldn't be the sole compass for morality.

What would you say should be the yardstick(s) for judging what behaviours should be accepted and tolerated in a civilised human society? How do we know when a behaviour crosses the line ?

Believe it or not, I've pondered these questions you just asked, way back then. If you've been reading my posts on this topic, you'd have picked up on something very important. But just in case you haven't, I don't mind spelling it out again: Love is messy. Attraction is unpredictable. There are always going to be curve balls involved, and you can't dodge all of them. Homosexuality is a natural variation in human sexuality, not some "unnatural nonsense". It's like having brown eyes instead of blue. It just is.

Granted that homosexuality is a natural variation, but does this necessarily make it okay or good ? I don't think there's need for me to give you examples of natural variations that are obviously bad. So how do we tell that homosexuality is a good natural variation rather than a defect, a disorder that needs to be cured.

As for incest? That's entirely different. Family relationships have power differentials baked in: parent/child, older sibling/younger sibling -- bonds of trust and mutual care and support that can be exploited in the context of a sexual relationship. This significantly complicates consent, and makes incestuous relationships far more likely to be abusive than relationships between unrelated partners. The presence of an instinctive sexual aversion to close relatives (see the Westermarck effect) also suggests that incest often involves coercion and abuse.

If the sexual relationship between two close relatives is consensual, would that be fine ? On what basis really should incest be condemned ?

None of these issues apply to same-sex relationships; objectively, same-sex relationships have no more in common with incest than opposite-sex ones. You might as well have asked why allowing German couples to have sex doesn't justify incest. It's a non-sequitur, and, I believe, really just an excuse to express revulsion for gay people -- thinly-veiled as an ethical question.

Does it surprise you that many people find homosexuality detestable ?

JessicaRabbit:
This is an impressive rejoinder. Well done. As a matter of fact, yes, you are correct that the conclusion C1 oversimplifies the complexities of human experience and the potential drawbacks of relying solely on the experience machine for pleasure. Your points about the potential pain of giving up familiar sources of pleasure and the uncertainty of the machine's superiority are well-taken. Nevertheless, I'd argue that your revised conclusion still misses the deeper concerns that Nozick's thought experiment intends to highlight. The experience machine scenario is meant to probe our values and what ultimately matters to us, beyond mere pleasure. While your revised conclusion acknowledges some practical considerations, I'm not sure it fully addresses the existential and philosophical questions at play.

I actually didn't attempt to address the existential questions the thought experiment poses yet. My reply was solely to point out what I felt was wrong with conclusion C1 and then offer what I think is a better premise upon which we can base our discussion on the thought experiment.

For instance, would we still be content to lead a life of pure simulation, devoid of genuine human connections, personal growth, and meaningful experiences? Would we sacrifice our autonomy, creativity, and capacity for self-improvement for the sake of pleasure alone? These concerns go beyond mere pleasure and speak to the essence of human existence. Even if the experience machine could guarantee superior pleasures, would that be enough to justify sacrificing the richness and depth of human experience? Or would we still have reason to opt out, precisely because our values and aspirations extend beyond mere pleasure?

I'm afraid that the answer to the questions you have directly raised here might be YES for a lot of people. As it turns out, the hypothetical pleasure machine in the thought experiment actually already exists in real life in some lesser, inferior forms. Drugs, pornography and masturbation, as well as social media addictions are some forms of this pleasure machine in my opinion. Based on what we can observe about how a lot of people are responding to these lesser sources of pleasure (lesser compared to the pleasure machine), it's easy to imagine that the vast majority of them wouldn't want to unplug from the ultimate pleasure-giving machine once they got plugged.
I think the issue is that the lofty human aspirations you have highlighted here are not so valuable to every human. Perhaps it takes attaining a certain level of awareness or some sort of "intellectual state" to be capable of seeing the richness of life beyond ordinary pleasures. The residual animal instinct in many people, which gives no fück about personal growth and meaningful experiences, still seems to be very potent .

Well, I'm persuaded to believe that homosexuality is genetic or at least mostly so.
However, we need to also keep in mind that even if it is caused by genetic and biological factors, it is notwithstanding an abnormality, a disease, a disorder. It is one of those things that happen as a result of nature messing up; it is an indication of something bad. So while we shouldn't condemn people who are genuinely naturally homosexual (or whatever other variant), we also shouldn't allow homosexuality to fester and thrive in our society.
Essentially, homosexuals (and their relatives) fall into the same category as Thalidomide babies, Parkinson's sufferers, autism or people who have cerebral palsy (using your examples). They are suffering from a sickness which requires a cure. They are an error that needs to be corrected !

JessicaRabbit:
In the absence of a philosophy section, I decided this topic wouldn't be entirely out of place in the romance section. But at any rate, please bear with me.

The first time I came across this concept was about 3 years ago on another forum. Apparently, it's a well known philosophical thought experiment, aimed at demonstrating that hedonism is false. For those who don't know, hedonism is basically the idea that pleasure is the only good thing.

This experiment was thought-up by the philosopher Robert Nozick as a criticism of hedonism. The experiment goes like this:

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

So what are your thoughts on the experience machine? And the argument for it? Would you plug in? Would you want your friends and family members to plug in?

C1: If all that matters to us is that we experience as much pleasure as we can then we have no reason not to plug into the experience machine. (P1&P2)

This conclusion is not quite right. Plugging into the experience machine would mean that we are going to give up the old ways of getting pleasure which we are already used to (eating, fücking, playing with friends, achieving goals etc). The thought of losing these pleasures may cause us some pain, a feeling which of course we always want to avoid. Furthermore, we may have genuine misgivings about plugging into the experience machine because we CANNOT be completely certain this will bring better pleasures than what we are used to. So there are reasonable reasons not to want to plug to the machine even if all that matters to us is to experience more pleasure.
A better conclusion should be that if you experience better or more pleasures upon being plugged to the experience machine than is possible in real life, then you should have no reason to want to be unplugged.

TenQ:
I am actually busy now but let me respond to some of your posts.

I wonder why you had to mention this. I didn't demand that you should reply me now.

It is not my fault that Atheism is so incoherent that one thousand atheists have a thousand belief system.

I think the problem is that you've developed some very wrong notions about what atheism is or stand for. Atheism doesn't have a specific belief system in the way that organized religions do. Even though many atheists might use similar arguments to support their stand, but there are no particular set of beliefs that hold all atheists together. The implication of that is that when you argue with an atheist, you're basically arguing with an individual; his ideas and thoughts may not necessarily reflect what other atheists think or believe.

True for the subset of intangible realities produced from tangible realities.
The converse may not also be untrue.

Perhaps you can cite some examples of the subset of intangible realities you know of that are NOT produced from tangible realities.

Mathematic, Logic and Software etc fall under the realm of INFORMATION. Information is REAL but not Tangible

Software is real, yes. It has a reality inside the memory of a computer. Mathematics and logic are not "real" things. They do not have a reality anywhere. They are abstract ideas.

This is why it is impossible to debate with a thousand faced individual.

. Atheists must have frustrated you so much in your debate with them over the years. Sorry 😐

Is gravity conscious?
If it is , yes but it isn't!

No, gravity is not conscious. But yet, it controls the "Working interconnection" of star systems,and galaxies. So what's the need for an "intelligent mind" in this ?

TenQ:
The Atheists Costly Error: Assumption that Everything REAL Must be TANGIBLE

First Some Definitions:
1. Real:
Things that EXIST are REAL : things that do NOT Exist are Imaginary or Virtual!
e.g. Your image in the mirror is virtual!
2. Tangible:
Anything that has either Mass or Dimensions (Length, Area or Volume) or Energy which can interact with time either by change in position or change in state.

Anything that is tangible can be described in terms of either its mass or Dimensions or Energy?

Photons and Gluons are mass-less objects and they do not even have spatial dimensions but they have measurable Energies: thus they are Tangible objects

Note:
All REAL things that are not tangible can only be known by the Effect they produce on other things that exist.

Actually, you're the one making a very costly and somewhat ridiculous mistake of assuming that atheists assume (or believe) that everything real must be tangible. Atheists of course know that gravity and electromagnetism are intangible real things !
Perhaps you should have asked for the opinions of atheists on intangible real things before reaching that erroneous conclusion.
And by the way, you should also stop assuming that ALL atheists have the same set of beliefs. The main thing that unifies atheists is that they are unconvinced that a god or gods exist. The reason for their lack of conviction can vary very widely.

On the matter of intangible real things, here is what I personally think:
Intangible real things are a product of tangible real things. In other words, everything that exists is a consequence of complex interplay and interaction of matter and energy.

Examples of Real things that are NOT Tangible include
1. Life
2. Mathematics
3. Software Code within a machine
4. Information
5. Logic
6. Magnetic Fields,
7. Electric Fields,
8. Gravitational Fields

I think some of these your examples here are poorly chosen. Mathematics and logic for instance are not "real" things in the same sense that magnetic field is. I do get the point you're trying to make anyways.

Finally,
There is a Huge Difference between Real objects that are NOT Tangible and the Medium by which their Existence can be monitored.
Every Non-Tangible REALITY can only be detected INDIRECTLY by the Effect they have on suitable mediums.


If you don't have problem of comprehending knowledge,
Answers to Questions from my Challenge to Atheists:
1. If an existence is not tangible i.e. cannot be measured in terms of Mass, Dimension, Energy and Time, does this prove it doesn't exist?
Answer: NO!
Examples abound Like Life, Logic, Software, Magnetic Field, Mathematics, Knowledge, Information etc

2. Is a software within a machine REAL or not?
Answer: Softwares within a machine are very real REAL

3. Can the software within a machine be "measured" or "quantified" DIRECTLY by any physical means?
Answer: NO! There is no physical means by which a software can be measured or quantified. Detection or Quantification can only be done Indirectly with Another Software.

4. Is it wisdom to insist on a physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist?
Answer: It is actually IGNORANCE that will make a person INSIST on physical quantification of a software within a machine to conclude that it exist.

5. Tell me, how can one DIRECTLY prove the existence of a software WITHIN an AI machine's CPU or MEMORY without the use of another software?
Answer: It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to prove directly the existence of a software within the CPU or HDD or RAM of a computer without the use of another software.

Everything you said here did not prove any point

Questions :
1. Do you as Atheists now concur that REALITIES Exist that are NOT TANGIBLE?
2. Do you as Atheists now concur that demanding for direct physical proof of Non-Tangible Realities is borne out of Ignorance?
3. Do you as Atheists now concur that visible Effects of Non-Tangible Realities on other real objects is a fair (indirect) proof of its existence?
i.e. Like the effects of Microsoft OS or Application program on a Computer is sufficient reason to believe that a software is operating within the Computer!

Like I said up there, you made a wrong assumption about what atheists believe about intangible real things. So you're basically arguing with yourself here.

4. Do you concur that a Working Interconnection of several Systems is a reasonable proof of an Intelligent mind behind the controlling program of the systems where the controlling program is Non-Tangible?

As we've learned in physics, gravity controls the "Working Interconnection" of star systems and galaxies. Can we then say that gravity is an intelligent mind 🤔?

CuriousCart:
Show us where I said animals created mankind or shut up. Your wife up there already ran away. You will soon.


Show us or shut your trap you bloody idiot.

It was a big mistake on my part to have commented on your thread. Upon reading your nonsensical post, I knew you must be a m0r0n, but I love giving people the benefit of the doubt, so I wanted to see if there is a method in your mädness, hence why I decided to ask you questions.
Now I'm convinced that you're really, truly, actually mäd

JessicaRabbit:
I wouldn't say that I wouldn't be as smart without chess, but I do think that playing chess has been a valuable addition to my cognitive arsenal. It has helped me develop a unique perspective and approach to problem-solving.

Alright, fair enough.

Actually, upon thinking about the matter more carefully, I think I might be committing hasty generalisation fallacy.

My belief that chess has little or no impact on one's critical thinking skills is based on my personal experience as a chess player myself. I have been playing the game for many years now and in all honesty, I wouldn't say that all the hundreds of hours I have spent exerting my mental energy on chessboard have had any significant, noticeable impact on my critical thinking skills.

But here's an important point I think I was missing. Before I learned to play chess in my second year in the university, I was already fairly good at logical and critical thinking (by the way, I believe this is usually the case for most people that love and enjoy chess). I was good at maths, further maths and physics, and enjoyed solving challenging problems in these subjects. After years of playing chess, I don't think there's anything I can do cognitively that I wouldn't have been able to do just as well without playing chess.

So, I think perhaps for people who lack critical thinking skills, it's possible that playing chess might help them improve or develop the skill.

And now that I'm curious about it, I will like to make findings about schools that teach their students chess to see if such training has any significant impact on the academic performance of the students. You should do this too before you start advocating for the teaching of chess in schools.

CuriousCart:
Show us where I said this anywhere.
Please expose me.
I'll wait...

If you can't show us then you are dumb.

ME: How did the animals become inhabitants of earth? Who created them ?

FÓ0LISH YOU: Who created our creators?
I have no idea sir. I only gave mankind's creation theory.

So tell me what the question in your response implies.

CuriousCart:
Who created our creators?


I have no idea sir. I only gave mankind's creation theory.

Oh, so the animals are our creators ?

By the way, don't call your story creation theory sir, creation fable sounds better

CuriousCart:
Yes.
Animals have lived longer on Earth than homo sapiens.

Homo sapiens are not natural inhabitants of Earth but a creation from two or more beings.

How did the animals become inhabitants of earth ? Who created them ?

JessicaRabbit:
Just because chess has its own set of rules and strategies doesn't mean that the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not applicable elsewhere. Strategic thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills are all valuable assets that can be applied to various areas of life, from business to science to everyday decision-making. Research has shown that expertise in chess can lead to improvements in cognitive abilities such as memory, attention, and processing speed. These cognitive enhancements can benefit individuals in various areas of life, not just in chess. So, the critical thinking skills developed through playing chess are not entirely domain-specific.

I don't trust all these psychological research easily, compared to research in physical and biological sciences.

Anyways, you're obviously a very smart person and I presume you've been playing chess for sometime. So in your own personal experience, would you say that playing chess significantly contributed to how good a thinker or problem solver you are now ? In other words, would you say that if you had not started playing chess then you wouldn't be as smart as you are today ?

CuriousCart:
Please read until the end to make meaning of my write up. I'm going to apply both scientific and biblical references and use relatable terms for better understanding.


Here's how I see it:

Human beings were created by beings from another world who had a leader/project manager (God).

These beings were not of this world. They possibly stumbled upon life on Earth while exploring and were obviously fascinated by the animals they met (no humans yet).

These beings of superior intelligence decided to experiment with the life they met on Earth by mixing their genes with chimpanzees (who happened to be the closest animal in semblance to them). So science is somewhat correct to state that homo sapiens are relatively new and evolved from chimpanzees. They just don't know the full details.

Out of this experiment they created Man who looked and behaved like them but he was primitive (Blacks). They created Man to act as their servant/labourer/assistant in taking care of the Earth they discovered for them. Think of it like a Bigman and his gateman or driver. They do not hate you but the gulf in class will be maintained.

Later on, some of these beings began to lust after the Man they created and eventually had sex with Man to produce further mutated offsprings. This is not too difficult to imagine because while Mankind were of inferior stock some must definitely have enticing features that appealed to the creators. The product of this union is mentioned in the Bible.

After this, their leader (God) decided to leave Earth since his original project had been tampered with but not before kicking out the erring members out of their spaceship (Heaven) into Earth (Hell without his supervision). These exiled beings rallied around a leader (Satan) and decided to make sure they destroyed their former leader's most revered project (Mankind) in petty retaliation. Like when your spoilt child pours away the pot of soup because you disciplined him.

I will explain the previous paragraph better:
Before the betrayal, God and his beings could come down here on Earth physically to live and give instructions to Man (like in the Bible). They could come down sometimes to solve problems with their superior technology (miracles) when summoned. Man also had a longer age limit since he was created with their DNA. But after the abomination, God decided to wipe out all of that anomaly with a flood. This flood did not cover the whole world as the Bible mentioned but just the inhabited parts.

The flood lasted longer than 40 days. It lasted many years and the ark people multiplied within it.

Some people survived the flood without being inside the ark.


These non-ark survivors migrated to Europe and Asia away from the flood and evolved over many years while the flood people were holed up in their ark. They explored and developed skills to survive on their own instead of waiting for their creators to save them as used to be the case then.

These survivors are the Whites of today.
Their skin whitened because they moved high up into the mountains and away from sunlight/sky to avoid the flood.

This is why the White's mentality is distinct from the Black's who still have the saviour gene in him. The Blacks are only just learning to survive on their own and still lag behind Whites whose ancestors managed to figure out a way during the flood.


This is also why Whites enslave Blacks throughout history because their genes still carry the original creator+creation DNA that God tried to wipe out. The ark survivors were chosen because they had the original lab experiment intact without sexual intercourse with the creator beings.

Now, through centuries of mixed race intercourse, almost everyone in the world will carry the creator/created DNA that God opposed.

That is the Mark of the Beast.

When all of Mankind finally have it, the leader of the exiled beings (Satan) plans to wage war (Armageddon) with his former boss (God) since his own project has overshadowed his boss' own.



Ask me any questions.


OAM4J nlfpmod Seun

Are you saying that animals and humans had different creators ?

JessicaRabbit:
You make some fair points. But even if we can come up with a dedicated critical thinking course that can definitely break down the skills we're talking about in a more structured way, how many of them can do it in a way that is as engaging as chess usually is?

When you're analyzing a chessboard, anticipating your opponent's next moves and formulating a strategy, that's all critical thinking in action! The only difference is that you're doing it in a context that's exciting and mentally stimulating. Learning those critical thinking skills in isolation might feel abstract to some students. Chess throws them into a situation where they have to apply those skills right away, and the competition adds a layer of pressure that forces them to think quickly and creatively. It's like a fun mental workout that gets these valuable skills ingrained almost subconsciously. Plus, chess teaches you valuable lessons about dealing with setbacks. You will lose games, especially when you're starting out. But you learn to analyze your mistakes, adjust your approach, and come back stronger. That kind of resilience is just as important in life as being a good problem solver.

I might also need to address a veiled misconception I'm noticing here. Chess isn't about turning everyone into a Garry Kasparov. That's looking at the issue through a narrow lens. Chess is simply about training your brain in a way that benefits you across different areas. Kasparov and Carlsen are exceptional chess players because they've honed their critical thinking skills to a master level, through chess. It's just like going to the gym. You strengthen your muscles, which then helps you perform better in various physical activities. Applying this analogy to chess, the game can strengthen your cognitive muscles, making you a better problem solver in general.

I don't quite get your argument about the number of groundbreaking inventions directly linked to chess grandmasters and I don't think it's necessarily relevant to the topic in general. But for what it's worth, I've come across countless videos on YouTube of successful people from all walks of life, from CEOs to scientists, who have credited chess with sharpening their minds. It's not a guarantee of success, but it's a valuable tool in your mental toolkit.

And by the way, I don't think anyone seriously believes that chess mastery magically makes you a genius in everything, but the core skills you develop are absolutely applicable outside the game and practicing them intensely in chess could strengthen your neural pathways for broader use.

Chess is a game played according to a few, well-defined rules. All the critical thinking you do when you play chess is basically centered around these rules. As you play the game more and more, you learn different strategies and tactics (still based on the rules) that enable you to play the game better.
Hence, when people get better at chess, they are NOT really getting better at thinking, instead they just become better at using the different strategies and tactics they've mastered (through experience and practice) and at analysing the chessboard. So a good chess player is one who has simply excelled in strategic thinking and tactical problem-solving within the realm of chess. The skills he has developed are highly domain-specific and not transferable to other areas.
Therefore, when you teach someone to play chess and they learn to play it well, their overall critical thinking skills may not improve noticeably. Also, someone can be resilient when it comes to chess and not exhibit that same attitude in other areas.
This is the whole point I'm trying to make.

My reference to Kasparov and Carlsen was just to further buttress the point that playing chess will not necessarily significantly improve your thinking capacity. These are two of the greatest chess players, so if playing chess is an exercise for critical thinking, then they should be among the best thinkers. But can we really say this is the case ? Well, I think they are just experts in the game of chess and nothing more !

If you're hoping that teaching chess in schools will help students become better at thinking, problem solving or learning, I think you might be greatly disappointed.

While chess certainly requires a lot of thinking (if you want to play it well), I do not think that by getting better at chess, you invariably become markedly better at performing other activities that involve significant levels of critical reasoning. In other words, improved chess playing skills does not necessarily mean improved thinking capacity. As a matter of fact, I think when you learn to play chess better, all that has happened is that you have mastered certain positional patterns and understood how to use different chess strategies and tactics well.

If you take Kasparov and Carlsen to the class room, they will not necessarily learn better than a typical smart student. Give them puzzles and problems outside of chess to solve and their performance may not be so outstanding. How many real-life problems have been solved or innovations birthed by great chess Grandmasters ?

If the goal is to make students better thinkers and problem solvers, I think it will be better to systematically teach them specific set of skills necessary for critical thinking and problem solving, skills that probably contributed to the emergence of people like Carlsen and Kasparov (and me 😁) as great chess players.

Okay