₦airaland Forum

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=4808.msg250836#msg250836 date=1143060868]allonym,

choice.A didn't say God does not exist - he/she was quoting your direct statements on March 18 where you clearly made the contradictory statements yourself.

Your quotes on the same day within 3 hours apart:


Since you're the same person as idiot and allonym, the writer made a very reasonable presentation of your inconsistency. You said something, and then deny that you did not say so. What kind of 'maradona' are you trying to play here? Will you deny those statements are yours? [/quote]So you are another person who cannot read as well.

No, I am not the same person as idiot.

I did not make contradictory statements. Why don't you quote the FULL sentences which you claim are contradictory, and then show that they are. Bet you can't do that.

How come you're not challenging my quote of Choice.A where he says that God does not exist. Or you don't deny that Choice.A actually made that statement. I didn't change or insert anything in that quote, it was taken directly from his post. Funny how I'm not the only person who can manipulate quotes for their own gain.

because when it comes down to it, guys in this society have to always be in control.

A woman can cry after not getting a promotion, and still get it the next year. If coworkers saw a guy crying. . . . hahahaha. . he's just dead-ended himself.

Men are supposed to be reasonable - try explaining to a guy why exactly he should cry over a broken nail. . . it totally does not make any sense.

i'll leave this for now

segun06:
You sound like you've seen some positive effects foreign aids have had, can you kindly point them out.

Well, before I respond, what type of foreign aid are you talking about? Government, private citizen, non profit organizations, or some other type?

Seun:
WHat about animals like snails that are heamaphrodites?

That is an interesting question. I'm not sure what Noah did in that case, the bible doesn't go into that much detail, and all the pictures you ever see don't ever show snails getting aboard the ark. Or for animals which can turn into females if the population of females is low - there is some sort of fish that does this.

seunmii:
allonym,come to think of this:effortlessly,you have what it takes to nail her but decided to ask her if she is having an affair.she denies.will you still trust her response?somehow,i am beginning to think that it depends on how your g/b friend has built the trust in you.trust should be earned.it is a gift that deserve its respect.it is the only gift the recepient has to pay for before receiving.

It is just my opinion, but I think a person would be incredibly stupid to marry someone they didn't trust. I would think they'd have earned your trust and respect by that point.

As far as your hypothetical situation, I already said that collecting such evidence indicates you no longer trust them. . . so, if I was at that point, I already would not trust them, and thus would not have to deal with the issue of having to decide whether or not to trust the response.

seeni4ever:
@allonym, you are a slowpoke, everything in bible is no written directly, we have to use our sence to get the fact, when god order noah to take two animals from every species, what does that indicate dumbass

Hey genius, if there was only two animals in every species, wouldn't God have said TAKE ALL THE ANIMALS?. In fact, seeing as humans were not vegetarians, how could Noah have taken every single animal and plant in existence, and nobody notice? A miracle you may gasp from your greatmind? It indicates that there had to be MORE of every species if Noah was to only TAKE two.

Maybe you are not quite the genius you claim to be. . . a slowpoke was able to destroy your argument so easily. . its actually hilarious, to think that God only made two of everything. . .

In case you didn't know. . Noah was to select a MALE and FEMALE of the species so that they could (in theory) repopulate the earth after the flood.

If you actually have a reply to this. . I want to see how much funnier this can become.

Perhaps you are unable to read.

It is quite simple, let us say that we are arguing about whether or not I am male or female.

If I say, "because I believe I am female, I cannot be male", as part of the argument,

I have not claimed to be female, just that in that argument, I'm disproving whatever views you may express which makes you think I am male.

Similarily, in the previous arguments, I make the argument that based on omnibenevolence, God, cannot exist. If you cannot see that this is not the same thing as saying that God does not exist. . . you perhaps need to spend more time in deep thought.

You are like a reporter, picking only the parts of a quote you want to show. It is quite obvious from the parts of my post that you quoted that you are obviously leaving out a lot.

SEE LOOK EVERYONE, CHOICE.A says God does not exist!!!:

[quote author=choice.A link=topic=4808.msg247232#msg247232 date=1142793784]- God does not exist;[/quote]

I guess you didn't read my posts. I did not state reasons for the nonexistence of God, just reasons why the God you describe cannot exist. Two different things. You are choosing to employ whatever rhetorical tricks you desire to ignore my arguments.

If you disagree with my definition of mercy, then define it.

Let me look it up: mercy, according to : wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn it is:

if somebody is being burned alive, it would seem that the compassionate thing to do would be to put them out of their misery. Apparently, you disagree. So, please, give me your definition. . . unless of course, you feel no point in discussing this further.

FredT:
Allonym/Donnie,

Reference to your comments, I think you got it all wrong. Jonah told the people of Nineveh that God was going to destroy it ( Nineveh) but the people repented and the prophesy did not come to pass as was initially predicted, does that portray Jonah a prophet of doom?

I believe prophesy is either to warn people of an impending danger or prepare them for what is to come. Not withstanding if you think a prophet is fake, is your criteria based on the outcome of the prophesy?


Let's leave prophets alone a think of ways of moving this country forward by holding fast to the word of God and praying for His blessings upon our land and behavioral change of our leaders!

perhaps you need to reread your own post. You've gone from people who contradict prophets tend to die to we should let prophets do their own thing

umm, the swf files are already on your computer if you viewed them on the website.

If you are too lazy to find them, you can always use a browser like firefox which allows you to see media content in a webpage and download the specific file you want.

In firefox, Tools->Page Info-> Media [tab]

before i used that firefox feature, i would just browse to the tmp folder where IE or whatever browser i was using stores its files and copy it. . . or you could search for its name if you didn't know where the folder is.

Whatever means you choose. . , this is a very simple task

if you "suspect" that something is up, you should talk to your person about it.

When you go to the point of even LOOKING for evidence, you no longer trust that person. No matter how you try to rationalize it to yourself, plain and simple, you don't trust the person. At this point, you may have just created bigger problems for yourself.

Greatpeter:
Some people like to take cold soft drinks after each meal, guess what's the impact? Our body has an optimum temperature of 37 degrees for the functioning of digestive enzymes. The temperature of cold soft drinks is much less than 37, sometimes quite close to 0. This will lower the effectiveness of the enzymes and put stress on the digestive system, digesting less food. In fact the food gets fermented. The fermented food produce bad smelling gases, decays and forms toxins, which are absorbed in the intestines, get circulated in the blood and is delivered to the whole body. This spread of toxins can lead to the development of various diseases. Think before you drink Coke or Pepsi or any another soft drinks.

Have you ever thought what you drink when you drink an aerated drink? You gulp down carbon dioxide, something that no sane person in the world would advise you to do. Few months ago, there was a competition in Delhi University "Who can drink the most Coke?". The winner drank 8 bottles and died on the spot because too much carbon dioxide in the blood and not enough oxygen. From then on, the principal banned all soft drinks from the university canteen.

Not that these are not the only ignorant things in your post. . . but they do stand out.

Are you really that stupid to think that drinking cold soda slows down your digestive system enough to do damage. That would mean that drinking ice cold water would have the same effect. So, please mr. man. . .what should we drink. we cannot drink sodas or water for the same reason.

Nobody gulps down carbon dioxide alone. . unless of course they have their mouth taped to a pipe coming from the exhaust of their car and their noses held shut. Barring that case. . . unless you don't allow a person to breath the entire time they are drinking soda, and force them not to breath for a few minutes afterwards, there is NO damage whatsoever to their body from the carbon dioxide. Hell man, your body builds up just as much from you holding your breath. So, even if they didn't drink the soda, you would hurt the person as much by making them hold their breath for 4 minutes.

I know that you are not as stupid as whoever made up those facts and are just passing it along or maybe its a joke. . . i can't really tell.

Reminds me of the urban legend. Somebody did a study on a dangerous chemical called dihydrogen monoxide. Yes, it is a real chemical. They found that over ingestion of it caused death. When a lot of it was in the ground, it triggered mudslides which crushed houses and lots of other damage. Its main components are the same as other deadly chemicals, such as ozone (yes, ozone will actually kill you - look it up if you don't believe me). So, the council which had comissioned the study voted to ban dihyrogen monoxide. , yes. . . H2O - otherwise known as water. You can imagine how many people who were happy to point out the stupidity of the council's decision . . . in a similar manner as I'm pointing out those in your posts.

[quote author=choice.A link=topic=4808.msg246074#msg246074 date=1142638725]Your reasoning is faulty by a million miles. You are trying to look at the attributes of God in a one-dimensional frame of reference - a limited constraint. Take another look at the divine qualities ascribed to God: holiness. A perfectly holy God will not only love purity, but by default He must act in perfect accordance with His holiness in situations of sin and impurity. It is perfectly in keeping with the attributes of a perfect God that He punishes wickedness and rebellion - qualities which are contrary to His character and personality. He cannot let evil run its course unabated. But if He zaps at every moment that man sins, rebels and spurns His grace, who would be alive today? And people like you would be first in line to say, "Aha! God does not exist because He has not shown mercy despite the fact that He says He is merciful!" Here we have a balance - and it is that balance that you have refused to look at. You are dreaming of a 'god' that is at best a monolithic being, one who is too rigid that he is incapable of acting in harmony with real experiences. God is holy and His holiness judges anything impure; but even so, He is merciful - and it is His attribute of mercy that helps man to not experience the immediate judgement of His hand.

In human relationships, any woman dreams of certain qualities in any man they want to give themselves to in marraige. He should be completely honest, gentle, caring and loving, among other things. Alas! How many times have you been dishonest, uncaring and unloving? Not trying to sound accusative, let me yet ask: Have you never stolen, lied, cheated, argued, said things to hurt people, acted cynically, put down people, . . . (and if you're married) - argued and been unnecessarily domineering towards your wife? So, just because you have failed at any one of these reference points (or qualities) would not be taken to mean that you can't be a good and romantic husband; less so could it be taken out of context to mean that you don't exist!

It's admittedly a poor analogy, but God has not failed any test of His attributes - He's not the one on trial: you are! You may not like this God and therefore write Him off as inconsistent and non-existent; but your premise is too narrow to draw any meaningful conclusion. Pain and suffering do not prove the non-existence of God any more than crime in any society 'proves' that the Police does not exist.

Think again about how many times you make contradictory statements: "then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be." Wait a minute: how could you tell the 'behaviour' of God, much less draw the conclusion that it 'contradicts' what He's supposed to be? How do you know the 'behaviour of God' if you deny His existence? If someone or something does not exist, how do you observe or measure his/its behaviour in other to draw upon a reference of contradiction? This is why your atheistic assertions are often muddled up.

You cannot establish a broadly categorical denial of the existence of God by a limited frame of reference and inconsistent or contradictory inference.[/quote]Limited frame of reference, inconsistent or contradictory inference. Wow, tough words.

1) I don't have to believe in God to make statements about what God supposedly is. I don't believe in ghosts, yet I possess a surprisingly large amount of knowledge as to what ghosts are. - think through your posts

2) So, are you saying I'm wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent? Or are you saying that God is actually omnibenevolent, and I'm not understanding the meaning of the word.

3) Since when do I need to analyze God from all possible sides. Shouldn't God be consistent from every angle. If we say God must be able to fly, there should be no way I can make an argument that proves God cannot fly. For me to be able to do so will either
a] Indicate that God does not exist or
b] Indicate that we were wrong, and God cannot actually fly.

So, I return to my statement, since you claim I cannot define qualities of God, let me use your own.

Lets start with your argument about balance. How can you define what God sees as balance? Since when did you become the arbiter of the balance between zapping us all for our wrongdoings and being merciful. Merciful is shooting a man in the head when he is being burned alive with no hope of being saved. I've never heard/read/seen God do that. So, God cannot be merciful. Unless of course, either I did not give an accurate example of being merciful or you are wrong in ascribing mercy as a quality of God.

Ok, the husband example. Lets start with God. We are claiming God is perfect. In order for God to be perfect. . .he must be perfect. So, if we were instead claiming that there existed a perfect husband, then that man would not EVER lie, cheat, steal, etc. You yourself have proven that since NOBODY meets those criterion, there cannot be a perfect husband. Similarly, I am showing that since the god described in the bible doesn't meet the criterion we accept for God, omnibenevolence being one of those, the god being described in the bible CANNOT be God.

So, wihle this does not disprove the existence of God, it just proves that the biblical god is not in fact God. If we ascribe to the argument that there is only one God and it is the god from the bible, then this will simultaneously disprove the existence of God because the nature of God is contradictory and if God was indeed perfect, it could not possibly exist as such a being.

See, something that is omnibenevolent would not want to allow pain to exist. However, just because you are omnibenevolent, does not mean you will get your way. Being omnipotent allows you to get your way. So, an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God would be able to end all pain and suffering wherever it went. However, it could not do this simultaneously for everyone, unless it was omniscient or omnipresent. (I won't delve into why it only needs to be either one or the other but not necessarily both for this to occur). So, an omnibenevolent omnipotent omniscient/omnipresent God, will end all suffering for all time. In fact, such a God will cure us of any inkling to sin. . . which destroys any argument about God having to maintain some balance between killing us all and being merciful. However, as you indicate, God does not do this, and neither does the police.

This means, God is just as useful (or USELESS) as the police. . . this would also mean God was not omnibenevolent, omnipotent, or omnicient. Which would mean there is no God. . .because if there was, it would have those qualities, and cure humans of all evil.

So, once again, either come up with better arguments. . .or tell me what YOU think the actual qualities of God really are. . . and I will write a response which is based ONLY upon what you say.

FredT, all of this is BS. Can you name one currently living prophet or provide information on a prophecy for an event made by a currently living prophet that will occur within the next year.

If you can, please, do so. When the prophecy comes true, you will be able to show how you brought lots of people on nairaland to Christ.

And please, no stupid crap like it will rain on October 21st in London. Human beings uninspired by God have been making almanacs for centuries.

I'm talking about a real prophecy like the one you mentioned. Something like, all the oil in nigeria will vanish for the entire month of July. The whole world will laugh at whoever makes such a prophecy, but if it came true. . . what do you think would happen?

ijebuman:
The reason you're confused is because you assume foreign aid (provided by governments) and humanitarian assistance provided by charities is the same. One has conditions attached the other doesn't.

I never assumed they are the same. In fact, I made sure to talk about them separately. What I assumed is by foreign, you meant anything not originating in nigeria. I didn't realize you were only talking about one specific form of foreign aid.

hmm, meet me at Green Park, in three hours then.

when will the argument cease.

Windows and Mac as OSes have been around for more than 10 years. If the MAC os was SOOOO great. . . then it would dominate the market. Clearly, windows is the better OS.

Anyone who claims that macs are better because they don't crash like windows is ignorant. Plain ignorant. There is just no limit to the idiocy that would make someone make such a statement. Want to know why?

Well. . .for starters. . Apple makes BOTH the actual software (OS) and hardware (PC).

Microsoft only makes an OS. So, to make a true comparison, you will have to compare them on as similar a platform as possible.

Macs are CLOSED systems. I cannot just up and create a graphics card that will work on a mac. I can do that for a machine that supports windows (or a nix variant).

Windows works on everything, mac os only works on a limited set of things. With the windows OS, its buy once, use forever. With the mac os, if i get a new machine, I also have to pay for a new os.

What fuc*ing games exist for macs. . .really? tell me?

What mac software can I used in my career as and EE - barely anything. , perhaps when I need to type a memo or email. Aside from that, I have to do the real work on a windows or nix machine.

For the vast majority of the world, macs look nice, but are useless pieces of crap. This is why macs suck.

If macs are so great. . why can't apple run all their webservers on mac machines?

You can already see the writing on the wall. Apple is soon going to become a sony or gateway. They will only sell empty shells of a PC. Offer you windows or mac (or some linux variant) to preload onto your system. Their like Alienware. . . you can buy machines which offer the same performance as alienware for a lot cheaper, the only reason people buy it is because of the looks. That's all that mac has going for it now. Looks. Which means, its not about an OS. . . its about the hardware. . . which microsoft does not make or call windows.

nferyn:
What exactly is an inseptical neophyte?

I know what a neophyte is - a newbie. . someone who is being initiated into some group, forum, etc.

I have no idea what inseptical means. . .

donnie:
Contradictions, that is what u see when you do not have the Spirit of truth guiding you through the Word of truth.

I have not yet found one of those so called contradictions in the scriptures. The Spirit is one and he always confirms his living Wprd in our hearts.

As for the first posting on this thread, i will deal with each one of thoe so-called contradictions step by step when i find the time to or when i feel it is worth it.

Umm, the man even posted the locations of the scripture. Are you saying he's lying or that you are too lazy to look and you are the liar?

nicetohave:
Just want to make a few contributions here,

In statistics, you do not prove that a theory is right, you can only prove it is not wrong.

In science, logic is not our burden of proof but evidence.

In criminal law, the jury do not prove anyone guilty they however acquit because they do not have enough proof to convict

Are we saying that we have enough proof to say there is no God or the Abrahamic God does not exist, or we don't have enough proof to show that he exists?Think about that nferyn, and let your logic guide you.

Do we say the earth is flat because we do not have enough evidence to show it is round or we cannot say the earth is round because we do not have enough evidence to show it is.

They may look the same but they are not, that is what logic is and if you are truly a student of logic then you are breaking a basic principle in logic by saying God's properties are false and hence no God, it is called the principle of double negatives.

I cannot prove this drug works, but i can disprove that it does not work.

logic, science, statistics; that is all they agree on. when it comes to the omnipotence of God why does this differ? because atheism is not logic but a force on its own, and what does it aim to achieve? it hides on the pretext of logic to disprove the existence of another force, which infact is not a logical act in itself.

Atheism in itself is a force potraying a principle in the heart of men, what they disprove is what they simply cannot prove yet they have no basis to disprove it.

nferyn are you following me?

In view of logic above, which if you deny then you do not know what logic is then, how have you disproved that:

1) The specific Abrahamic God has been disproved; or are you saying that you do not have enough evidence to prove it? but does that disprove it? no! does that prove it? No also! i cannot prove that God exists, i cannot even prove that he does not exist but i can disprove that he does not exist, that is what logic is if you are confused about the 2 (or 3) then you do not know logic, you only seem to know it.

remember, logic, statiscal power is all about double negatives, not double positives.:

if i can't prove that a drug works but i can disprove that it does not work then id still use the drug

if i can't prove that there is God or no God, but i can disprove that there is no God then id still believe in him and worship him.

2) How is his qualities not so, or you meant to say you don't have enough to accept it? the later in each question is logic, that is statistical power.

nferyn, which do you chose?

Lets start from the basics. . . He brought up three qualities that people tend to ascribe to God:

1) Omnipotence
2) Omnibenevolence
3) Omniscience

It can be proven, that it is impossible to be all those things at the same time. It is not so hard. Define omnibenevolent. From here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolent , it is defined as:

Omnibenevolence is the property of being perfectly good, attributed by some religions to God. The word omnibenevolence may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, and so on, depending on precisely what is taken to be good.

It doesn't take an idiot to see the problem with God being omnibenevolent - why do bad thimgs happen to good people.

To be omnibenevolent and still have bad things happen to good people. . .that would imply God enjoys the pain of people and thus doesn't see it as a "bad" thing. However, that would technically be a contradiction of his omnibenevolence and thus , . it couldn't happen. So, a being that allows pain to exist CANNOT be omnibenevolent.

Once you accept this to be true, you realize that unless we are wrong and God is NOT omnibenevolent. . . then God cannot exist since its behavior contradicts what its supposed to be.

nicetohave:
I cannot prove this drug works, but i can disprove that it does not work.

And that is your justification for using the drug. And so, since (you claim) people cannot prove God exists, then you can live your life happy assuming that he does.

Here is something that would blow your mind.

It CAN be proven that having your head severed from your body will kill ALL cancer cells in your body.

This means, that decapitation is a CURE for cancer.

Let me know when people start using THAT proven cure.

The logic of that argument. . . while stronger than yours. . . illustrates the problem with your line of reasoning.

Fluffy:
Kissing with eyes wide open is not romantic!
It's WEIRD and CREEPY!

this is still an opinion. . . not a fact. . .

jbyame:
Allonym don't get me worng we are born in sin and it does say that in the bible. but it does not say that babies don't go to heaven it says they do go to heaven

It does not. If you want to prove me wrong, go ahead and try, if you want me to, I can post all the bible verses that I found relating to this topic.

davidylan:
why the "african"? why not simply american? they were born there! Why are Germans, brits, poles e.t.c. not called european americans? is it because they happen to be white so no one bothers?

I'm assuming your ignorace stems from the fact that you must have limited experience with the United States of America. If you had more, you would not be making such blatantly false statements.

Just so you know in the future, people of german, spanish, french, or any country not in North America are referred to as : German-American or Spanish-American, heck, people of mexican descent are referred to as Mexican-American. The only one I cannot recall hearing in the past 14 years is Canadian-American. . . either canadians are really special. . .or americans don't like them. . .or them us. . . or all. . .or some other thing.

ijebuman:
Foreign aid is money provided by governments and thats the only 'Aid' i'm talking about. Charity Organisations do not give aid in monetary terms, they may finance a project but they do not give money to any government, same with private individuals. They can only give money to other NGOs in that country.
Just to clarify here a lot of the major charities are not working in Nigeria (e.g Plan, Save the children etc) as Nigeria is not regarded as a 'poor' country. They tend to work in places like Niger, Mali, Sudan etc.
They are a 'significant problem unto themselves' but who compounds it by selling them weapons or by supporting dictatorships (see my earlier post on my alternatives to "Aid"
Like i said earlier charities do not give monetary aid, they provide humanitarian assistance when there's a disaster (like famine, drought and other natural disasters etc). They don't give money to governments. Charities like Red cross and Save the children, provide relief materials directly to the people affected. Once they finish they move on to the next emergency, they do not stay their indefinitely and they do this all over the world not just in Africa.
If you read my earlier post at no point did i blame charities, how can i? when i actively support many of them working in Africa. It was "Foreign Aid" i was against.

I've only pointed out that the so called "Aid" the earlier poster talked about is not really "Aid" as it comes with a lot of strings attached. And the so called 'billions' spent is for their companies and consultants. Look at Iraq where all the juicy contracts for "rebuilding the country" was shared out amongst Bush and Cheney's cronies. All the billions [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,1052186,00.html]spent in Iraq[/url] is going back to American firms like Halliburton (a company Cheney used to run before he became VP). And then they wonder why the Iraqis are pissed off.

Back to the negative western media portrayal, if you don't see anything wrong with the way things are then there's no point anyone complaining if European football supporters throw bananas at our football players or 'make monkey sounds' when they are on the pitch.
There's no point complaining if all Africans are seen as 'disease carriers'.
There's no point complaining if our ethnic groups are regarded as 'Tribes' (Even the BBC still uses this word to describe African ethnic groups despite repeated protests from African scholars to stop using it) or if ethnic rivalry in Africa is described as 'Tribal warfare' but in Europe its called something else.
There's no point complaining if foreign airlines fumigate their planes (while passengers are inside the plane) on African routes but never do the same on other routes.

There's no point complaining if the UK Guardian reports that 419 is now Nigeria's main source of foreign income after Oil and Cocoa (when any intelligent person will tell you it is money sent by Nigerians working abroad unless that is what they meant by 419 .US officials claim Nigerians remit back over $3b annually through 'official' channels like Western Union, while through unofficial channels it could be as high as $12b)

If you think we deserve all the coverage we get and this coverage is truly 'Fair' then there's no point complaining if anyone treats us 'differently' from other people.

Oh. . .so you are restricting your talk about "aid" to that given by foreign government.

Ok. . .fine. . I'll go along.

Explain this though: Why should a foreign nation be expected to give "aid" without strings attached? Chances are, unless my country was doing so well, that we could live on our own, without ever having to require anything from any other country, I would not ever consider giving out aid just for the heck of it. It would always be designed to benefit my country. It is immature to expect otherwise, . it doesn't make sense to expect otherwise. Perhaps that is what confuses me most about your posts.

Rhodalyn:
of course i'll go ahead and marry him what happened to ''in sickness and in health till death do us part''if im marrying a man, im not doing so because of his abilities but because of the love i have for him if you don't marry him, then who do you expect to marrry him can't you adopt a baby or something i mean i know it's not the best but it's already happened and the seem like the best thing to do

in case you did not know, that only applies AFTER you get married.

Kave:
Lets just conclude that there are 2 sets of people in this forum. 1.Romantic. 2.Non Romantic set 1 close their eyes while set 2 don't.I belong to set 1.

that is crap - i've been told i'm romantic so you are obviously wrong

seeni4ever:
god created every living things in twos, remember the story of noah. if youbelieve in god chicken came first. if you don't egg came first.

Not only does that NOT make any sense at all, BUT it is also WRONG. Nowhere in the bible does it indicate that God created things in twos with the exception of humans.

it is the answer.

I was the chicken's best man! I got the word from the. . .in this case. . chicken's mouth!

And. . .the egg complained to my gf. . .so I got confirmation on that side as well.

pearl2:
@calabarman.
I can see your problem.U already have your preconceived conclusion of the subject matter and then u go to town,looking for other people to help u substantiate your stance.That's pitiable.
The fact that many people take on the new practice on campuses doesnt make it right,u've heard from someone that has been into it even having the courage to condemn it.Fews weeks ago,a lady confess the peoblem her friend was having to me,after the lady in question stayed for a boy for almost 2 years dreaming marriage,he kicked her out into the cold,now she's heartbroken seeking counselling.
Another boy I know cohabited in service year,messed up girls and went for a new girl to get married to.Later he confessed to somebody he wouldnt want his own sister to indulge in a such a practice.I think it satisfies the burning lust of the boys, without the option of commitment.I don't know if u have a sister,would u be happy if someone treat your sister like that? The practice demeans the dignity of the womenfolk.
I for one would not want my own sister to be so treated.
So no matter how common the practice is, it's still morally wrong.Most of the girls from respectable homes,brought up decently will not do it.Some do it without the knowledge of their parents of course.
I hope this is 'real' enough for you.

Just because someone says something is bad, doesn't mean it is. What about all the people who would "confess" that it worked out for them. Should we discount what they say as well?

davidylan:
Great analysis on the issue of foreign aid to africa by the western nations coming from Ijebuman.

[Njoki Njoroge] Njehu [director of the 50 Years is Enough campaign] cited the example of Eritrea, which discovered it would be cheaper to build its network of railways with local expertise and resources rather than be forced to spend aid money on foreign consultants, experts, architects and engineers imposed on the country as a condition of development assistance.

Strings attached to US aid for similar projects, she added, include the obligation to buy products such as Caterpillar and John Deere tractors. “All this adds up to the cost of the project.”

Njehu also pointed out that money being doled out to Africa to fight HIV/AIDS is also a form of tied aid. She said Washington is insisting that the continent’s governments purchase anti-AIDS drugs from the United States instead of buying cheaper generic products from South Africa, India or Brazil.

As a result, she said, US brand name drugs are costing up to 15,000 dollars a year compared with 350 dollars annually for generics.

AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act, signed into US law in 2000] is more sinister than tied aid, says Njehu. “If a country is to be eligible for AGOA, it has to refrain from any actions that may conflict with the US’s ‘strategic interests.’”

“The potential of this clause to influence our countries' foreign policies was hinted at during debates at the United Nations over the invasion of Iraq,” she added.

“The war against Iraq was of strategic interest to the United States,” Njehu said. As a result, she said, several African members of the UN Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was seeking council support for the war in 2003.

“They came under heavy pressure,” she said. “The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges”.

— Thalif Deen, Tied Aid Strangling Nations, Says U.N, Inter Press Service, July 6, 2004
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


Europe subsidizes its agriculture to the tune of some $35-40 billion per year, even while it demands other nations to liberalize their markets to foreign competition.
The US also introduced a $190 billion dollar subsidy to its farms through the US Farm Bill, also criticized as a protectionist measure.
While aid amounts to around $50 to 55 billion per year, the poor countries pay some $200 billion to the rich each year.

In effect then, there is more aid to the rich than to the poor.

Many in the first world imagine the amount of money spent on aid to developing countries is massive. In fact, it amounts to only .03% of GNP of the industrialized nations. In 1995, the director of the US aid agency defended his agency by testifying to his congress that 84 cents of every dollar of aid goes back into the US economy in goods and services purchased. For every dollar the United States puts into the World Bank, an estimated $2 actually goes into the US economy in goods and services. Meanwhile, in 1995, severely indebted low-income countries paid one billion dollars more in debt and interest to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) than they received from it. For the 46 countries of Subsaharan Africa, foreign debt service was four times their combined governmental health and education budgets in 1996. So, we find that aid does not aid.

— Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Eyes of the Heart; Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of Globalization, (Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 13

There is more aid to the rich than the poor? Tell me how does a european nation or the united states. . . subsidizing its OWN business. . .count as aid? How can you even compare it to the aid they give to african nations? That is ridiculous. . .its like if you were a homeless man living out of a box on my street, and you yell at me because I make sure my kids are well fed before I toss a dime to you.

@ ijebuman,

you are confusing aid given by a country's government with aid given by organizations or private citizens. I'm not surprised that government aid mostly translates into reducing the debt owed by other countries. Perhaps you've never bought anything on credit or taken out loans. . . but there is a HUGE benefit when you reduce the principal amount of your loan. It does nigeria no good if it owes the us $100 million which grows at 5% interest per year if nigeria only produces $10 million in gdp. (for this example, I'm making up numbers). In this case, the 20% of the GDP would go towards paying the INTEREST on the debt alone . . . there is probably very little opportunity for many African nations to actually reduce their debt other than the aid your so despise.

However, many times, aid is specifically designated for food, healthcare, clothing, housing. Guess what happens to it when it winds up in Nigeria. . . . somehow, it evaporates. . . its kinda hard to take your argument seriously when the african nations themselves are a significant problem unto themselves.

private citizens give plenty of aid to organizations which work towards funneling money to the country or actually work housing, feeding, clothing, ppl, among other things. So, even if you discount the aid from foreign governments, what say you about this?

Until african goverments stop leaking money like a water tank that has been struck by a missile. . . i don't think you'd see that much of a difference. . . .and blaming the people who are doing the most to help. . .probably doesn't help your case either.

ijebuman:
I think people don't understand the point i was trying to make apart from Pearl2. All i'm asking for is balance, you hardly hear anything positive reported about Africa. The whole continent is tarred with the same brush despite the fact that there a lot of positive things happening in many African countries.
Countries like Ghana, Botswana, Namibia, SA etc are making a lot of progress but no one hears about them. Only the negative is portrayed. The average viewer in a western country has no idea about what Africa is really like apart from what he keeps seeing on TV.
Its so sad that even Africans born outside the continent associate Africa with only poverty and disease. I know Nigerian kids scared of visiting Nigeria because of all the stuff they "hear about Africa"
This is such a sad statement to make, how much foreign "aid" are we talking about here. How many African countries do you think gets foreign aid (which is quite different from loans). If this is the basis for supporting the negative portrayal of Africa then i'm sorry brother, you're playing the "victim".
You think the paltry sums they throw our way to ease their consciences is because of the sad scenes politicians see on TV. For all the foreign aid sent to Africa there are always conditions attached to it, nothing is free my brother.
Its like here's some aid but you need to remove all restrictions to imports from our country or here's some money but we need to set up a military base in your country.
The amount of aid provided to Israel alone is far more than what the US spends in the whole of Africa. Does the US give money to Israel because the israelis are starving?

As Africans we don't need aid from these countries, what we need is for them to stop interfering in the affairs of the continent
- by allowing fair trade agreements so African raw materials are sold at fair prices not at prices determined in western countries.
- by not encouraging conflicts by selling weapons to both sides of a conflict (e.g Sudan, Congo, Rwanda)
- allowing their multinationals to pollute and degrade our environment
- allowing our corrupt politicians to stash money in their banks and providing them safe havens
- Supporting dictators that end up destroying their countries (e.g Mobutu in Zaire supported by US et al throughout his tyrannical reign, Rwandan Hutu leadership that carried out the Tutsi genocide was supported by France etc)

I could go on, hope you get the gist.
It's hypocritical, because western governments and their multinationals are part of the problems in Africa yet their media will highlight the problems without providing a proper historical analysis of why the problems are happening.

Oh and another thing that is becoming prevalent in western countries is 'donor fatigue'. This is a situation where people are so tired of seeing negative images from Africa that it doesn't prick their consciences anymore.
Well the people i know (myself included) are proud of our Nigerian heritage and we're constantly working to improve things and change perceptions. If you're so ashamed of your country/continent you can do something about it by supporting African charities. You can start by sponsoring an African child at Plan - http://www.plan-uk.org/becomeasponsor/

Paltry sums huh. . .the billions in USD that african countries get in AID every single year is paltry. This either shows just how bad the problem is in africa, or suggests to some ignorance on your part.