₦airaland Forum

homerac7: these hue and cry over 3MB is getting more stewpid as d days go bye. I have been hearing all sort of silly cries of "abnormalities" with 3MB but never has anybody given a sane and educated reason. Today, a pepper seller will tell u dt d bridge is shaking, tomorrow a dog-catcher will tell tales of how d bridge was vibrating "dangerously", next a lawyer will talk about a bolt that is broken somewhere, bla bla bla..........

Nobody who is an expert has ever said that the bridge is faulty for any reason. by the way, how many bridges in Nigeria is in same type with 3MB? ...so why would u expect that it should b rigid like the other shorter bridges? If the vibration is the reasons u think it is abnormal? then u r right...it is normal for it to vibrate more because of its "abnormal" length. if it were to b as rigid as many of u expect, then that will b very abnormal because it will collapse if only a bicycle rides over it!!! if MUST vibrate more in order not to crmble under its own sheer weight when a rolling load is on it, otherwise there will be serious load imbalance which by its sheer size cant tolerate, hence catastrophic failure.

Pls if u have any other reasons y u think it is faulty, bring it up and i will like a thread be opened where structural engineers will come up and educate the people correctly. Not just silly sayings gathetred from pepper sellers, dog-catchers, lawyers and ice cream hawkers.

ijebabe: As a federal republic it is duty of individual states to look into this kind of matter. If not then our brilliant government should change that title. Its a bridge for crying out loud!
Must it get to disastrous levels for things to happen at a federal level? WTH.

ijebabe: I thought the Lagos state government was self sufficient enough to carry out this type of work? Where are all those funds going to?

Don't they give out contracts to companies who carry out regular maintenance and report to the Lagos state government?

Until people die then you'll see Fashola come out to give silly speeches. SMH.

Logicboy03: See the liar?


Who drew an imaginary line? Mathematics and Philosophy are taught as separate fields in schools. That is not imaginary. I also acknowledge that they intersect because of the logic equations- there is a philosophy of maths. Very sound argument to show that they are separate but intersecting.


Now, you claim that maths is a subset of philosophy with no evidence or logical argument. How is your subset not an imaginary line?

Anonyism

thehomer: Question my confidence in what way? We know that billions of years ago, the universe couldn't have supported life because it was too hot and dense. Today, we know that it does support life. This tells me that billions of years ago, there was no pre-existing life but there was matter and life consists of this matter. It in fact consists of the most common elements in the universe so I still don't see what you think is supposed to question my confidence. Did Louis Pasteur know about the Big Bang?



It wasn't sudden. If anyone is trying to introduce magic, it would be you theists who propose some magical entity that is both outside and inside the universe who may or may not be doing anything that decided to magically create life.



Actually, on the cosmic scale, you're irrelevant but at the regular human scale, you're relevant. The problem is that theists claim that humans are relevant both at the cosmic scale and at the human scale. What more are you talking about? If you want to say God, just come out and do so.



So because you find the universe strange you think a God must have been involved? This is just an argument from incredulity and it is fallacious.

thehomer: A senseless response once you realize that there was a time that this universe couldn't have supported life. Even if you wish to claim "god did it", he had to have done it using non-living materials.

plaetton: There is no way they can conceptualize the bolded. Since they believe that the universe is 6000yrs old.

If the universe is 6000yrs old, then life on earth only began less than a second ago, and with population growth and its attendant environmental degradations and eventual collapse, there are few reasons to believe that the earth is capable of supporting life for the next 6000 yrs, or another 1 second in the celestial clock.
What has this purposefully designed universe been doing before our arrival, and most importantly , what will it be doing after we may have consumed ourselves to extinction, right after our 2 seconds of celestial existence?

thehomer: Why? He isn't a cosmologist and he wasn't writing a scientific paper.

Sure. Until you encounter people who endanger their lives and that of others around them for the sake of these said myths. Whether you like it or not, some people take those stories more seriously than you do.

Because so far in his society, Zeus hasn't been used as a tool for harm neither has he been cited as a reason for some dangerous action or ignorance.

Logicboy03: See your life? You are now making the same argument as religious dunces.


Are Zeus's Temples forcing millions to reject evolution and science or is it churches and mosques that hate on evolution/science?

Deep Sight: gradually receding

thehomer: rapidly ascending

thehomer: And you're rapidly ascending to being detached from reality. If you actually knew anything about determining probability, you'll know that if an event has occurred, then its probability is one. We've been through this before too but you refused to learn from that exchange. If you haven't corrected the sorts of errors you made then, what makes you think that I need something "original" to show you the error of your thoughts?

I can understand that you're bitter about being unable to counter anything I've said but saying that they're things I read elsewhere isn't an insult or a criticism of what I've written here.

That your thought is "original" doesn't make it true and having your type of "original thought" except maybe in composing literature for pleasure isn't really useful especially when they've been shown to be wrong decades ago. What you need to realize is that one doesn't need the "unoriginal thought" you seem to be criticizing to respond reasonably to you. In fact, you won't be having these wrong "original thoughts" in the first place if put the effort into understanding what we've found out so far.

Be happy with your "original thought". I'm sure there was once a time when Bozo the clown was considered original.

Logicboy03:


Then why complain about Dawkins with religious peeps who are about god in a more than deist sense?

Logicboy03: Deepsight is worse than any religious nutjob you can think of.

He doesnt believe in the same god as christians and muslims but he is ready to curry their favour because he knows that they are in the majority.

Imagine making the statement that belief in god is not harmful? If Deepsight was talking in a pure deist sense, yes. But even at that, there is the problem of intelligent design taken as a scientifc theory over evolution.

However, we have seen the destruction caused in different gods' names.


DeepSight is a sycophant.

thehomer: Well the statement in bold is false. The statistical chances of life in this universe is 1.

plaetton: And if I may add, Deepsight's notion that a simple belief in creator is harmless seems to ignore all tragedies of human history. There is no such thing as a simple belief in a creator. A belief in a creator brings many many complications and chaos to human interactions and human life, in general.
Again, taking a cursory look at history, we find that humans do not kill or war over observable phenomena, such as moon phases, the planets and stars, sun cycles,gravity, sunshine and rain, atoms, protons, etc.

On the other hand, humans have an inclination to kill and war over man-made things like god,religion , economic and political ideologies.

What I am trying to say, is that if god were self-evident, human life would have been far less complicated than it has been.
The belief in god is a source of unending complications and conflict to human simply because it is a projection of the human mind or psyche, with all the contradictions therein.

thehomer: Well you're wrong about that. In the clip under discussion, he read what he wrote about the Christian God in the God Delusion. Do you think that quote had anything to say about religion? Have you read the God Delusion or a fair review of what it contains? If you had, you'll realize that he tried to show that at least the Abrahamic Gods didn't exist and that even if they did, they would be tyrants and religions based on them would be expected to be tyrannical.

To you it is harmless but to those who are denied proper education, are beaten or killed due to religious ideas, it is harmful.

jayriginal: This is the part that really interests me because I have argued on this forum that this is incorrect. I have argued this with theists, deists, atheists and "agnostics". Its a common misconception. An atheist is one who does not believe in god. It is a very general term and not specific for those who declare that there is no god. So you guys are jubilating because Dawkins refused to declare god non existent when he is supposed to be an atheist. It shows you dont know what you are wrestling with.

This misconception leads to warped arguments all the time. Warped arguments and phantom chasing.

thehomer: Religion is not the issue to who? Do you see God coming down to kill homosexuals and blow up buildings? The fact that you think it is harmless, doesn't make it so as many religious people will show you if you push them to it. Period.

thehomer: That same thread that you eventually absconded from?



Ooh Mr. Deep Sight lays down the law on who a dunce is.



Of course. Ignore the pastors and prophets who haven't written anything controversial but have made more money. Though people like you simply miss the point. The main question is: why should religion be out of the realm of what can be honestly criticized? You now assert that writers are actually con-artists. Please can you tell me what concept of con artist you're using? I ask because anyone who understands the language and buys the book most likely knows what to expect. You go ahead and write your controversial book but before you do, please tell us why writing on religion is controversial.



Really? Are you aware that because of religion, people have been doing and are doing stupid and dangerous things that affect not only themselves but others around them? On Dawkins advancing his professional calling, why don't you actually take a look at his accomplishments on Wikipedia. Seriously, people like you sometimes make me wonder what you think scientists and education are for. You seem to think that scientists should simply shut up and work in their labs as if they're not a part of the society they live in or that they may have views that they may wish to express.

Logicboy03: There are 8 planets but 8 itself does not exist.

plaetton: Like Wirinet said above, most athiest had never read a book by Dawkins nor even heard of Dawkins> the choice of Dawkins as the favoured whipping boy of theists is most amusing.

Everyday, especially sunday, millions of pastors, priests and con-artists of every color and shade mount the podiums and televisions screens to scream "god did this, god did that, god loves this, god hates this",and other false crap.
This has been going on unchallanged for the past 2000 yrs.

Then one man,among a very few, writes a book, goes on public podiums to challange this standard idea that god did this or did that, then suddenly, every one goes ballistic. Then he is called stupid, dunce,intolerant and all manners derogatory names: Just for bravely challanging an old idea.

I find it funny and hypocitical that you somehow expect his reasoning be to perfect and flawless and his scientific knowledge to be perfect and absolute , while same is not required for pastors and priests.

I doubt that dawkins has ever converted any theists to atheism. However, in whatever small way, Dawkins and others like him only help to remind us to come to terms and accept the doubts that we harbor in the deepest part of our minds, irrespective of the daily and incessant blabberings of priests, pastors and imams.

Religion and the belief in god is a mental conditioning. It is going on in millions of locations worldwide right now. It takes a lot of mental courage to break free and challange this conditioning.

Logicboy03: Anony and Enigma dubiously misninterpreted a video of Dawkins to claim that he was wrong/confused. You then want to use this misnterpretation as evidence that Richard Dawkins is a dunce?

Why not state the dunce-like statements or arguments that Dawkins has made? Even Anony is smart enough not to call Richard Dawkins a dunce.

Infact, for someone who claims that numbers exist (which you ran away from), you shouldnt be calling a scientist a dunce.

wiegraf: No there aren't

Logicboy03: Fail......

The christian claims that god exists and the atheists tells the christian to prove it (Which the christain cant prove, by the way)!

The burden of proof is on the claimant and not the skeptic

Enigma: You know what I always say and who I always think your insults also apply to whenever you insult me.

As I said before, the evidence of Dawkins saying specifically that the hypothesis he was putting forward is directed panspermia can be produced in a matter of seconds. However, I will only put it forward, if I find it necessary at all, in my own time.

Meanwhile, people enjoy something I posted long before this thread.

From here https://www.nairaland.com/906545/radioactive-decay-argument-existence-something#10528689