₦airaland Forum

Ok, let's observe the facts:

1. He said the sexton would have an accident:
This is vague vocabulary, an accident can be anything from a plane crash to a fender-bender to even a fall from the stairs. Accidents happen all the time, people get injured or worse during such events.

2. No time frame was given:
Leaving the time frame open makes a prophecy more likely to occur. Mathematically speaking, as the sample space approaches infinity (increases), the likelihood of an event occurring at least once approaches 1 (certainty). Luckily enough, this happened the next day which is why you see it as a big deal.

3. There was a prayer to avert it:
This is the perfect way to deliver a prediction, by leaving an out you are never wrong regardless of the outcome. If the accident hadn't occurred, the man wouldn't have been wrong because it was the prayer that averted the tragedy. If the sexton had died, the prediction was correct to the letter, and finally, if the accident happened and didn't lead to death - as it happened in your example - the prediction would still have been right.

There was literally no way for that prediction to completely fall flat.


Further reading: The Full Facts Book of Cold Reading, Ian Rowland (1998).

These are the tricks that psychics use written by a psychic.

Martinez19:
.

I'm guilty of this, too.

Ayo001:
How does not believing in God improve or better your lives now?

Faith is an unreliable method of developing beliefs. Pushing it aside has allowed base my beliefs on empirical evidence.

I am now more skeptical towards everything in life.

Calling witches and wizards is one of the most rëtarded things I did as a Christian.

Nutase:
The people behind the offer are the mumus. They can use the money for charity since it hasn't been claimed.

Stop telling them what to do with their money.

Besides, exposing these charlatans is a form of public enlightenment.

hopefulLandlord:
I had sex with Amy Acker yesterday

Amy Acker came to my house and said she's aware of her being my celebrity crush, she also said she's aware that I have always hoped to have sex with her

she then stripped off her cloth to reveal her red lingerie, hopefullandlord's Weiner had no choice but to rise to the occasion

after Amy Acker made one of my dreams come true, she said she just had the best sex of her life and She'll be back again for more

Check fücking mate, atheists!

Ranchhoddas:
I doubt many women will agree with you on this.
I try to put my trust in my observations above all else. I don't believe that women are generally opportunists.
Manipulative? Perhaps
Self-serving? Absolutely not.

This isn't about whether they agree or not, these are just facts. For example, as an atheist, I don't like the fact that atheists are more likely to suffer depression than religious people but I accept the evidence that it is true.

Furthermore, I'm not saying that only women are self-serving and opportunistic, I'm saying that we all are. That is the fact of our nature. It is the reason we haven't gone extinct.

8,000 years ago, for each man that reproduced, about 17 women did. Today, this number has reduced to 4 or 5 women for each man.

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

This clearly shows that women instinctively go for the dominant men while the vast majority of men have to use their hands.

How did these dominant males become dominant? Through violence and conquest.

All I'm trying to show is that there is no weaker or 'fairer' sex.

Ranchhoddas:
I take your points.
What you are hypothesising is that women being more religious is an evolutionarily honed defence mechanism right?
How is it at odds with what I'm saying?

Exactly, we aren't at odds in that matter. We are only at odds when talking about the reason, you see women from an idealist point of view where their nature is weak but pure while I see them from a cynical point of view where their nature is self-serving and opportunistic and is the true way viewing both sexes.

Ranchhoddas:
The aversion to risk is what draws them to religion--an insurance policy against an unseen adversary, in this life and after.

The problem with that theory is that it fails to account for social dynamics. Throughout history, women have never been in the position develop communal laws. So, religion must have been formulated by societal leaders who were almost always men.

The hypothesis I'm running with deals with communal clashes. This hypothesis postulates that during such events, the primary casualties were men while women were inherited by the victorious clan.

It would have been evolutionarily beneficial for women to develop emotional safeguards against change that they had little control over. Hence, the lower rates of PTSD and the higher rates of Stockholm syndrome in women.

This manifests itself today in the ability for women to get over relationships easier than men. Hence, why they initiate more divorces, and why they commit suicide less.

It is advantageous for one's health and safety to avoid conflict and stay in line with whatever social climate you find yourself. This is why women are more likely to remain religious.

Ranchhoddas:
You are not sounding like a misogynistic at all. You are sounding like a crazy fe****st.

Really? Because I did not endorse the behaviours I just described in any way. I just stated the facts. And while I believe everyone should be treated equally by law, I would never say that the genders do not have general differences that stem from biology.

Daeylar:
I've only seen societal factors, please any link to wherr you read about biological factors?

A study on the a average brain differences between the sexes shows us that women are less disposed towards aggression and are more emotive than men in general.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hope-relationships/201402/brain-differences-between-genders?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C6052972620

Daeylar:
Any thing that can prove the bolded?

Study of over 10,000 people:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201201/gender-differences-in-personality-are-larger-previously-thought?_e_pi_=7%2CPAGE_ID10%2C7227940946

Ranchhoddas:
It is a special kind of naivete. The kind that is the opposite of pragmatism.

At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist or misogynist, that's what they want you to think. Men are naturally polygamous, women are naturally hypergamous. On average, women have an easier time breaking long-term relationships when a higher status man shows interest in them. That's why over 70% of divorces are initiated by the wife in western societies. That's why it is rare to see a household where the woman earns more than the man.

We believe that women are weaker emotionally but a man is three times as likely to commit suicide than a woman, men also have higher rates of PTSD after traumatic events. The risk-averse nature of women is very useful for self-preservation especially when you aren't physically dominant.

Ranchhoddas:
My dear lady,
While you might not with the agree with his presentation, you cannot fault the message.
Women are generally more unsuspecting, more gullible, more emotional and more naive
In every "Yin/Yang" distribution, the group of people who have these qualities are the ones more likely to be religious.
Blacks, the poor, the less educated, the less exposed etc.
There will always be exceptions, but the logic is correct.
Women are more likely than men to take the path of least resistance, which is what religion offers.

I agree with women being more emotional but I'm not sure about them being more naïve or gullible. You're mistaking that with pragmatism.

Due to their physical disadvantages, women on average are just more likely to avoid head-on conflict. That's why they use other means such as gossiping and back-biting rather than direct confrontation or physical combat to get the upper-hand.

I don't want to go too deep into evolutionary psychology and I'm not claiming all women or men behave in a particular way, I'm only speaking generally, here. I just want you to know that the misconception that women are simple-minded is what leads a guy into raising kids who aren't his.

felixomor:
And yet you mentioned "question" above
Wow

Ok, I'm done here. You're already showing your maturity.

felixomor:
You didn't even get the question......
1st failure

I warned you. Now see.

You didn't ask any question.

felixomor:
Probably, u said. Wrong

Nah, they will mumble like an exposed liar who cant find a new lie to connect to the old lie.

If you are ready, we can practicalize it.

The sexes evolved from hermaphroditic progenitors.

I've read that societal and to a lesser extent, biological factors predispose women towards agreeableness. This would go a long way towards making women take the path of least resistance on average.

felixomor:
Nice line of thought, op
In addition,
One question that kills their thinking is the question of order.

Just Ask them "male or female, who evolved first"?
And watch how They will start mumbling.

They'll probably be mumbling at the ignorance dripping from that question.

Uyi168:
..we are two different persons..

Oh, ok.

Uyi168:
Where?

Hmmm. I thought you were UyiIredia. Am I wrong?

Uyi168:
Nothing in biology makes sense except only in the light of evolution..

This is a surprise. Weren't you once against it?

butterflylion:
Well generally it is necessary and that "generally" includes the 0.5% because in the benefits listed the hygiene aspect was already highlighted.

Take a look at the list of benefits I provided again and also read the site I gave about personal testimonies from those who have been circumcised.

The benefits are overblown and do not justify the procedure. Hygiene is the job of the parents and they shouldn't be allowed to chop off a part of their son for easy maintenance.

Would you remove your child's appendix to prevent appendicitis in the future? If not, then the marginal effect circumcision has on preventing STIs in the contentious studies that prove it shouldn't be enough for you to permanently remove a part of a child, especially when we have condoms.

You also neglected to consider to functions of the foreskin, which include:
Protection of the glans from abrasions which reduce sensitivity and ultimately mild erectile dysfunction, provision of extra skin to allow the penis to naturally grow to its full size (the scarring caused by circumcision can impede growth), increased sensitivity (the foreskin has a ring of specialized nerve-endings), etc.

So why cut off a fully-functional part of the body because it takes slightly extra effort to rinse?

butterflylion:
So when is it required?

0.5% of uncircumcised males experience excessive constriction by the foreskin on the glans. This makes it difficult to properly wash the area under the foreskin since it cannot be pulled back. In this case, circumcision is necessary.

butterflylion:
Not worth the pain right? Tell that to these men


http://www.circinfo.net/men_circumcised_as_adults_tell_it_as_it_is.html

It's ok if its your decision as an adult. I'm not against the procedure itself, I'm against doing it on children when it isn't required. How hard is that to comprehend?

I'm completely against the cutting off part of a person without due consent. Furthermore, modern scientific sources show us that the foreskin is actually a very useful part of a functional pen!s, full of nerve-endings, and allows easier penetration during sexual intercourse. The purported health benefits are not worth the risk and pain involved in the operation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/denmarks-29000-doctors-declare-circumcision-of-healthy_us_58753ec1e4b08052400ee6b3?timestamp=1484242698606

We've banned Female Genital Mutilation in all forms including the clitoral prick, owing to the rights to body autonomy. Why then shouldn't we do the same for Male Genital Mutilation?

Poverty and illiteracy can be a potent cocktail for creating evil, especially when combined with combined superstition and religious indoctrination.

butterflylion:
I am not sidetracking ogbeni. I simply used my question to answer yours. If you can show me a thread where a single atheist did not hide behind science to rationalise their atheism or argue against religion then you have answered your own question.

Just one thread that an atheist here stated their irrefutable case without recourse to science that's all.

You asked for a thread where such a consensus was made without knowing that actions depict consensus which is why I used my question to wake up your mental process. Asking for specific wordings being made is blindness when Actions have spoken much louder than those words.

I told you not to waste my time.

butterflylion:
I am not sidetracking ogbeni. I simply used my question to answer yours. If you can show me a thread where a single atheist did not hide behind science to rationalise their atheism or argue against religion then you have answered your own question.

I did not ask you a question. Rather, I requested evidence for your statement. If you cannot provide evidence for your statement, it would seem like you lied. I want to think that you are better than that.

Your response to this comment should be the evidence I requested. If not, don't waste time replying.

butterflylion:
Can you show me a thread where a general consensus of atheist did not run behind science when trying to rationalise their atheism and debate those they term as religious?

So are you an atheist alone or you are an atheist based on certain " proof" you claim science offered you?

Don't sidetrack the discussion. You are the one who made the assertion, here. Or did you lie?

butterflylion:
These atheists here are not Africans. Even if they were they would deny it because according to them Africans are not scientific and only the whites are and to them the white scientists have all the answers to everything and since they follow science by the whites then they see no reason to believe in any higher force especially when such a force is a diety.

When they make claims such as being irreligious they assume it's meant to hurt those they claim are religious even when those whom they mistakenly assume to be religious are also not religious but PERSONAL adherents to a faith.

It's all about rebellion and a desire to see it as something justifiable.

My own na to dey read your many calculations my boss.

Can you show us a thread where there was a general consensus of Nairaland atheists disavowing Africa?

701ecilana:
Wonderful, didn't you say you were better than KingEbukasblog here? Oh lawd.

Being better than that guy doesn't make one smart.

701ecilana:
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, these people eh. And you call yourself smart o.

I don't recall calling myself that.