it's filled to the brim with perpetually frustrated morons who can't have simple dialogue without screaming at the top of their lungs.
always loud for no discernable reason.

you can literally get into a fight over the most petty nonsense in this shithole.

Total strangers can start up unwanted conversations with you in the most obnoxious fashion. the roads are disastrous trash, even in the so called gra. The yahoo boys here are the brokest and most pathetic but make so much noise at the same time.

dont even get me started on the traffic. Jesus fucking Christ, Benin drivers are literally tied with Lagos for the most insane drivers in the south South. It's bad enough that I have to board a gigantic scrap of rusted metal for my daily commute. but yet I have to deal with self-confessed lunatics behind the steering wheel. The driver in my bus today literally made a joke about us being stupid for entering the bus of a madman!

i understand that this peculiar fragrance of insanity is widespread in most third world countries like Nigeria but for the love of Bleep, it seems Benin and Lagos are competing intensely for the covered price of the most decorated City of morons in the 21st century.

the economy is tough, I get it. but let's stop pretending it's a valid excuse for mannerless behavior and shitty upbringing.

I just needed to get that off my chest. I know behavior like this is pretty much acceptable in Nigeria, more reason i can't wait to see this country crash and burn as i know it will eventually.

heyy, listen guys, if it helps you any, I happen to know for a fact there is a 5th Dimension.

Not kidding . I was up up and away in a beautiful balloon when the wind blew me east toward the dawn . I think it was around the age of Aquarius , if I remember coreectly.

To be clear , I didn’t actually see the 5th dimension , but I heard it. The sound was transmitted over a little transistor radio I had in the balloon with me . And it was a very distinct sound.No doubt in my mind it was the 5th dimension I heard.

hope that helps you lot around here

1. I was once a Christian.
2. I am now an atheist.
3. If religious belief is a choice there must have been a point where I, as a Christian, chose to become an atheist.
4. A Christian would never choose to doom himself to eternal Hell by becoming an atheist.
5. Therefore religious belief is not a choice.

Judas1X:

Issokay m'lady. Leave him to me. I know the method to his madness. Dude Is busy telling long tales but he doesn't know he started the insults
DrLiveLogic, I actually feel sorry for you. I haven't even started to think of attacking you verbally. You seem to be uneasy all of a sudden. Today's a busy day for me. Please endeavour to answer my questions before I return. If you think you've got lip, then you thought very wrong
State of peace indeed

that guy is blabbing pure pseudoscience. none of what he's saying has ever been validated by science! honestly one of the cringiest apologists I've ever seen. Jeez!!!

[s]

DrLiveLogic:

I totally understand you, bro, but it also shows you've not been reading my posts and this is not a new understanding.
Heb 11:1-3 ...and faith is the substrate of what we hope for, the object of proof not seen(immaterial like your emotions, conscience...) because in it, the elders became witnesses. Faith makes us understand that the ages were structured by the utterance of God, to that the visible things did not become from visible things (the Singularity is pointing towards this).
Note these are only claims but can be validated. The quest begins from the questions and after introspection, a method will be proferred. All the elders were scientists, researching in the immaterial world while living in the material. The validity of that was determined in their personal search, not provided by another.


The problem is you don't get the bane of logic. Understand axioms and self-evident truths. All logic derives from and builds on these not proving these. They are verified by consciousness, like virtually all matter, so with faith.



No you weren't Tantrum, denial can give us the same lens and truth isn't nasty, dear old man friend. It's denial that causes torture, misrepresenting it. Plus your problem is you really came with a prejudice from whatever previous encounters you may have had with 'theists'. If you'd simply try read my posts, I never claimed uncertainty of evolutionism validates creationism. I have all through only tried to invalidate the false security in it and suggest empirical validation of faith.


Very well then, my senior old man friend and examiner, if repetitive use of boy, lad et al makes you feel more accomplished and superior. Just remember that I answered your questions for what they're worth(or not) and offered mine not to examine you actually but for self-examination. These questions don't validate faith, they can only lead you on the quest to resolve the unknown, like science. Faith will be validated only when contacted.


Actually, you're yet to match Tamaratonye5's tirades. The reason they may look non-existent to you is because such are feckless in my world so I don't respond in kind. If you don't believe, give your best shot. And don't worry, this doesn't require logic, just mere experimentation, like faith. However, my demeanor is not arrogance but simply from a state of peace inside. Like I told her, I really wish her the best and on the quest of faith, I actually wish you all success from my heart of hearts but if you have no interest in researching faith matters the way I've suggested, let's not waste each other's time, I can plead no further or should I put a knife to your throat?
One love bro.

PS. I hope dragonflyy can see that Tantrum, doesn't want to drop it with her claims on evolutionism and she doesn't even know what we mean by code in DNA lol. Tantrum, ain't calling for help, you gave Daejoyoung a link, I offered him a refutation. That's how we arrive at a circumspect perspective but would you ever know that. LMAO.
Dear Tantrum, faith cannot be derived etymologically and certainly not by a dictionary because it is immaterial in nature. Only those who have the experience know what it really is. Try Paul up there.

[/s]
guy how do you manage to say so much, and end up passing zero meaning accross

Tamaratonye5:

You don’t know what fallacy means clearly. But then you don’t know what a scientific theory is either, so pretty typical for a creationist. I long ago stopped being surprised at how ignorant religion keeps many of its adherents.


No one asserted that we were intelligent. You asserted DNA was intelligent. If it was, wouldn’t it intelligently design more intelligently? It is a chemical process and nothing more.


You’re an arrogant clown, especially considering your posts contain some of the most ignorant idiotic drivel I've seen on this particular website. Asserting your god is perfect does not make it so. You don’t get to assert a god into existence. Provide evidence or go away.

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


Since you’re the one denying a global scientific consensus based on over 160 years of the most intense scientific scrutiny, and all to justify an absurd unevidenced belief in a deity from a bronze age superstition. The hilarity of a creatard accusing anyone of denial is palpable.

You haven’t got a clue of what logical ground any atheist is standing on. Your inane responses and idiotic assertions are evidence of this.


OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

As I already said the talkorigins website has a massive database of scientific evidence for evolution. It also has a massive database of creationist propaganda that science has debunked, most of them you have used here.

FYI, I'm not an atheist because I believe in evolution. That's your own Dreamland. I'm an atheist because of the lack of evidence for god/s

What objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?


The fossil evidence alone establishes this


Do you care to translate that gibberish into a coherent sentence, Hmmm?


So we can add English to the expanding list of things you don’t understand.


Your point is to deny an accepted scientific fact that contradicts the risible creation myth form your bronze age superstition, and of course the reason is because you can’t offer any objective evidence for your deity, or any creationist propaganda. Here’s a clue for you, because I know how slow creatards are…

SCIENTIFIC FACTS ARE ESTABLISHED BY OVERWHELMING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, THEY CAN ONLY BE FALSIFIED BY THE SAME. WHEN A CREATARD GETS A NOBEL PRIZE FOR FALSIFYING EVOLUTION I WILL ACCEPT IT, BUT CREATIONISM WILL REMAIN AN UNEVIDENCED SUPERSTITIOUS MYTH.


Rubbish, you don’t half talk drivel. The best method we have for validating claims is the scientific method, which creatards risibly think they can cherry pick when it contradicts their superstitious myths.


And as I said there is literally nothing you cannot believe using faith. So yes of course faith based beliefs are irrational by definition. The efficacy of logic is manifest, as is the uselessness of faith. As I keep asking what is your criteria for disbelief if you are prepared to believe using faith?


What singularity? You don’t have even the most basic grasp of logic, that is abundantly clear.


Yet here you are, arguing for your intangible deity. So please demonstrate some objective evidence for your deity. I keep asking, but you just keep posting the same subjective rhetoric and logical fallacies.


Even your title seems confused. If something is valid, isnt it meant to be logical?

How are questions valid if they are beyond logic, and therefore by definition irrational, that’s such an obviously errant title I want to laugh out loud. Why on earth would any rational person want to pursue a quest for faith as well, faith is utterly useless for validating claims, as there is literally nothing you could not believe using faith, as I have already explained.


Again, what singularity?


Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, textbook.


I have no idea what that means sorry, is it from dungeons and dragons?


I've probably stated this a thousand times here already, but: logic is a method of reasoning that adheres to strict principles of validation, in order to remove bias and flawed reasoning.


I don't know. If you do, please demonstrate some objective evidence for this. Also why have you phrased this as a question?


Again what are you taking about, is this a reference to dungeons and dragons only I have never played it?


Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that it is? Or has that just become your usual incoherent fallacious rhetoric?
---------------------------------
Cheers
Tamaraton Trinus Tantrum

Egbon free that small boy

He is asking you to defend an argument you never made. I wonder why you're even indulging him.

[s]

DrLiveLogic:

My bad. I asserted you were intelligent. If you have no intelligence, then you're right, DNA has none. Fits perfectly with your origins theory of intelligence stemming from non-intelligence, that we design AI.
DNA that writes code for the compiler that encodes itself, what AI seeks to achieve with deep learning, has no intelligence in Tantrum's world. I'd like to meet you in your world. Smh.


Don't you wish this would make a theory irrevocable, Mrs scientific method?
Most intense what LMAO. You should study the many revisions and modifications of the theory.


Cc: Daejoyoung
Smh. Laughable when someone suggests TO for critical study on evolution, and shows you're neither a core scientist nor ready for in-depth analysis but only gathering unfiltered superficial info. You probably occupy yourself with other things leaving you little time for such although that wouldn't be an excuse for a matter as important as your soul's security. For your sake, here's the fastest of the critiques on TO I found not that I propose creationism for that. Refute TO
TO is pure propaganda and uses counters against flimsy and outrageous creationist arguments to validate its argument, mere strawmanning, without presenting important info on the uncertainties and limitations of the evo theory but many half-truths instead. Prolly why it seems obsolete.

Again there's nothing like overwhelming evidence/proof for evo rhetoric but only many findings with subjective interpretations. Such misconception stems from a lack of training in the scientific method.
Again, evolutionists consistently shift the goalpost by alternating the definition of evolution between mere adaptation and trans-speciation, an interpolation from prejudice, to make findings like the fossil record support their rhetoric, as is not the case.
You really should go do a thorough study on evolution from both sides of the arguments. That alone will help you understand why Darwinian evo is not proven but only accepted by a camp.
Such is not the case with logically deduced facts and laws which every scientist must accept without argument.


FYI, stale and overused.


What you tell yourself to feel better. You're an atheist cause you don't want to ever investigate the validity of creator for loosing your freedom and having accountability. If you believe in your emotions, conscience etc. you can't see or touch, you can relate with creator that exact way. Faith is a more tangible substrate than these. The question is if you're willing to.


The fossil record establishes common descent and adaptation not trans-speciation.


I almost applauded you but oops!, missed a spot. The interpretation by evolutionists will have to first be established by the findings without prejudiced interpolation, letting facts interpret themselves.


Since you don't know about it, don't bother. Just know that science has proposed a point where our current space-time logic disappears.


Laugh less, when in ignorance, I'd suggest, dear Tantrum. Validity is tied to reality/existence. Logic derives from self-evident reality and towards deduced reality. Go figure!


Faith is utterly useless if you believe it's blind belief, and well, that's blind belief too because you could find out what faith is but choose not to.
The undergirding yardstick of reality is consciousness. Whatever we're conscious of is self-evident reality. Learn girl, these are not derived by logic but from which we develop logic to deduce derived realities. This is why faith, like matter, isn't to be logically deduced. A little baby knows mama is real because it's aware of her not because of systematic deductions. We similarly know the universe is real, not by logic but by our consciousness of it.
So the substantiality of faith, like our universe, is in consciousness not in logic. The question must be 'how to contact'. It is not about believing any claims but about contacting a tangible substrate. If one weren't and is busy convincing himself of anything, he is still faithless.


You're well informed but need training to correctly apply it.

Let us now reconsider the ten questions of which for reasons best known to you, you avoided the all important final three.
Ten questions
I cannot answer these questions for anyone but any who would understand faith must answer these himself and then ask how faith is to be contacted, like his emotions are.
Tantrum, over to you, you determine if we go further, chit-chat and tirades will not pay. If you ask the right questions, I can answer, else...


Trinus now? Let me in on your obsession with three, my dear.

[/s]
she said she's not an evolutionist but you want to turn her into one by fire by force
Oya, see me here: I don't accept Evolution and I also don't believe in gods
Stop being a coward and provide evidence for the god you believe in instead of reversing the burden of proof
Bloody coward

aigmax:


Kimbrielle aka Amazontopaz aka amazonhippolyta aka Misshippolyta88 aka stephleena aka acenavy aka altagracia aka ladyhippolyta88 aka Amazonianqueen

CATCH YOUR SUB !!!!

for only one person?
Ah kilode!!!

Amya:


You're smart. I knew it was her. Same handwriting. The stress someone put themselves through though.

I know opening a Gmail account is easy, but really...

I never knew obsession was this big on nairaland. it's one thing to troll ordinarily to hype your fave but where you cross the line between sanity and insanity is when you start creating multiple monikers to create the impression that your fanbase is large or something. at that point you've just exposed yourself as a pathetic lowlifer.

And these people are mothers, or will become mother's in the later future. it's a tragedy.

1000WaysToLive:
None.


Though I'm sure some ps4 games were ported to the Switch like those Assassin's Creed games.


I've also watched countdowns regarding the Best Switch games, and none of the graphics of those games impressed me.

I've also watched the full walkthrough of Ultimate Alliance 3 and I don't think I've missed anything.

I don't need to play the game to judge the graphics. I always check the gameplay / graphics first before I buy a console game anyway



And honestly, this looks a lot better than most ifnot all exclusive Switch games.

i’ll take comic book style ultimate alliance 3 over whatever square enix is attempting as their character models/design are so bland.

Vic2Ree:

Well, the game might still turn out good. You never can tell

nothing has won me over since last summer. it will be a write-off for many people it should have never been.

MJBOLT:

I have my doubts.i went through his posts,there's one where he insulted ronaldo,hulk616 would never do that because he's a die hard ronaldo fan and the guy loves to drop insults,that's not hulk616 MO

i agree with you. it's just that when pu7pl3 asked him if he's hulk, he said "yap". at the very least maybe he knows hulk616.

MJBOLT:

you are not hulk616,your profile gives you away

i have a gut feeling that he is really hulk616

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

Cottonmouth,

see his original argument above. now he wants to conflate it with his new argument and deny his original post any validity

[s]

pu7pl3:

[img]https://media./images/f0857deb77bc38892dfb6ed90f28bd6a/tenor.gif[/img]

I'm done with this one....it's hard to be woke [img]https://media./images/c653d014acbb5fe4b9758908a9ff5206/tenor.gif[/img] [img]https://media./images/5da7d0fa3dff6ab5fde7ef190b994b0a/tenor.gif[/img]

[/s]
lolz . you allowed yourself to be washed out by the waves of your foolishness

Cottonmouth:

LMAO

Baba wanted to switch argument

[s]

pu7pl3:


More evidence of your cluelessness...let me dumb it down for you simpleton

In layman's terms:- you can't make a claim of one actor being better than another based on just one project, you have to judge them on different projects

but can you understand this still?

Nah

[img]https://media./images/86c2d498e1554a0c08748e7d16895969/tenor.gif[/img]

[/s]
Mechionu dia. read what u said below

dragonflyy:

[s][/s]
so in ur mind blockbuster appearances are a measure of acting talent abi?

wehdone

pu7pl3:


Obviously, numbers don't lie...

Arindin. you don't know how to lie

keep entertaining me with ur foolishness

[s]

pu7pl3:


No,[img]https://media./images/cc6adb2c8b5c88c132f47a600cf878be/tenor.gif[/img] you just don't have anything reasonable to say because you are a clueless mf round the clock...

[/s]
so I'm supposed to debunk an argument that presence in films = quality in acting lolz

pls manage your L for the sunday

[s]

pu7pl3:


And you struggling to mask your obvious lack of knowledge and intelligence by hiding behind quips and poorly constructed jabs...what useful point have you made since I quoted you? NADA..that's your own ceiling I guess..talmbout keeping opinions to yourself on a public forum, boy you are clueless

[/s]
i know it pained u but I don't argue against trash.

Next!

[s]

pu7pl3:


Unless you are blind or you just pretending to be you would have seen where I said that using big movies isn't 100% reliable as a metric for measuring acting talent before I also brought up range.. you on the other hand have just been trying hard to correlate things that doesn't even make sense talmbout "a flaw in your logic"...I'm not making any other explanations on this matter cos as far as I'm concerned there was no arguement there in the first place

It's easy to join the crowd and throw jabs but when I throw back I'm being condescending..y'all are just hypocritical lots with delusions of intelligence..y'all are actually the ones that look and sound foolish especially you thinking that the Rock Vs DDL is the same comparison as Cavill Vs Cox

[/s]
look at who's talking of delusions of intelligence

nigga you're on a public forum. if you don't want to look like a clown, next time keep ur pungent opinions to yourself

Mtcheewwwwww

[s]

pu7pl3:
I can't even..with you guys anymore... someone that claims to know how Hollywood works is saying that Cavill gets more roles just because he is good looking

There is nothing else to add here...run from it all you want, deny it all you want Cavill is the better actor and he will continue to be more prominent and relevant than Cox..

Cox can stick to his usual music videos and short films..it's what he is really good at...

[/s]
jeez!! this man are u still here!!?
nigga, ur mumu never still do you?!

Lala39:

Tell that to all the women who refused to sleep with Harvey Weinstein and got blacklisted from Hollywood.

gbam!!!
oil dey ur head!!!

[s]

pu7pl3:




This is the type of clownery that will turn this place into a desert again real quick

Cox was decent in just one series and all of a sudden he is a better actor than Cavill, even when the numbers clearly state otherwise..?

Okay, you are refuting numbers but what other parameters have you brought as measuring tools to back up your claim? Nothing..instead you resort to canceling my comments, throwing Jabs and making side comments like little kids deprived of thrills

Y'all are too old for this advice but there is time for everything

[/s]
another useless post

so now if I see an actor on the screen I have to go look up how many films he's made before i can estimate the quality of his performance?

your points are exhausted
Next!

pu7pl3:


[s] Obviously, numbers don't lie...Cox doesn't have the range Cavill has

[/s]
looooooool... I did not know that talent boiled down to a mathematical equation

please try again

[s]

pu7pl3:


I don't need to name anything, it's obvious...only the fact that Cavil has been in more blockbusters despite them being the same age should tell you

[/s]
so in ur mind blockbuster appearances are a measure of acting talent abi?

wehdone

HbJ2:
Lol... i can’t picture Matt Murdock as superman. I just don’t see it.

charlie cox is is a much better actor than cavill , but I'm happy he ended up being the perfect matt murdock instead.

Rorschach1:
Hello. Would you guys be okay with the MCU doing a hard reboot eventually or do you never want the MCU to be rebooted? Eventually I do think the MCU will get rebooted in some form. Be it a soft reboot or a hard reboot. What say you?

they will reboot eventually , but we're not there yet

MJBOLT:

meet Smiley Men,the villain of The New Mutants movie

damn. that's one scary motherfvcker right there...

MuttleyLaff:






"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter;
to search out a matter is the glory of kings"
- Proverbs 25:2

Praise Yah. Alleluia.

watchman
from AR

will we ever see a new mcu flick this year? I need my mcu dose and Aos doesn't evwn count.

[s]

Minemrys:

Like seriously, so it means, in 2020, while the world is being threatened by corona virus, there are those who haven't grown past the marvel vs dc n0nsense? It's way too childish now. To be frank, superhero whatever no longer m0ves me n0w.

[/s]
where were you when your fellow DC retards were having orgasms over Dark Phoenix's failure ? when they came to shit on our thread, some of us responded and the rest of us locked up. i don't remember you whining about marvel DC beef!

now we're returning the favor we are being childish. stop the hypocrisy and take your L abeg!!!