[quote author=kosh999 post=51524782][/quote]
Messi play with xavi and iniesta but he also played with Pedro, keita, bojan e.t.c... Ronaldo's team was more expensive than barca's team. Ronaldo played with Ozil, do maria, Alonso, bale, James, Marcelo, Kaka, Modric... For the past couple of seasons, Madrid had had better players than barca but barca are still winning titles more than Madrid

hopefulLandlord:


what are you really saying here?

getting to final is no achievement especially in a country that has won the world cup before

abeg stop twisting

But winning the best player of the tournament award is an achievement, Messi has won MVP at three different international tournaments, how many has ronaldo won

olayemite:

Olympic football event is not a FIFA tournament.... Senior level i.e national team is the most important, in this regard, Ronaldo has an edge over Messi..
They're both great players

The only thing of note ronaldo has achieved with his national team is euros and he was not even on the pitch, he had two good games out of 7, crediting ronaldo with the triumph is folly when pepe was even more consistent...
Messi has one golden balls at u-20, copa America and d world cup... Those are individual awards not team titles that are won by a team... And even if we are talking yen titles, Messi has won ten more titles then ronaldo despite being two years younger

Saintabey:
I give it to Christiano Ronaldo. In FCB, Messi has almighty players to play with. CR7 is d engine room in Real Madrid. In their country, CR7 was able to act as a coach/mentor to help his mates. Messi lacks leadership quality.

Oshi... Engine room because he scores tap ins?? What about modric?? Messi is Barca's engine room because he created chances and dictates play with passess

KingEbukasBlog:


The richest countries in the world are Christian-dominant countries , the Christians own 55 percent of the global wealth , 56.4 percent of the millionaires in this world are Christians and more than half of the billionaires in this world are Christians .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_and_religion
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/01/14/the-religion-of-millionaires-.html

Please stop posting false information .



Which country? There are just 6 leaders who are atheists in the world today out of 195 countries .



I'm not sure where you got that . Here are Christians in Science and Technology who are currently active in the 21st century

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology#2001.E2.80.93today_.2821st_century.29



The Greatest minds have been theists/deists. Only 10.5 percent of Nobel Prize laureates are atheists , agnostics and freethinkers . The rest (89.5 percent ) are religious people . Christians are 65.4 percent of Nobel laureates . The founders of modern science were Christians and Muslims . The most prestigious schools in the world were founded by Christians .

As at 1996 , only 3 percent of Mensa members were atheists and 49 percent were Christians . Even currently , we can assume that more religious God-believers are in Mensa as it has only added 21,000 members considering that atheism has the lowest retention rate and experiencing a massive decline worldwide .

There is no evidence for your claim or else it would reflect in these facts .


Atheist state Cuba live in abject poverty and half of atheist North Koreans are extremely poor . And don't forget there atheists in Religion and God-believers outside religion/irreligious .

1. Any demographic especially from the past will be unfavorable to atheists. Why?? Because it was an unpopular concept in the past when knowledge was relatively limited. So saying only 10.5% of Nobel winners are atheists is misleading when the prize was established in 1895.
2. The demographic about rich Christians is generally misleading.. Many people who identify as Christians don't practice. I identify myself as a Christian, only that I don't believe all the great fictional stories. Donald Trump also identifies as a Christian... Many people are agnostic but just identify with Christianity, it saves them from a lot of fuss. Even Bill Gates doesn't identify as an atheist. And even at that, this doesn't explain why Christians still make up the poorest people in the world. Especially the committed Christians... In fact the three most religious continents are the three poorest.
If I say Christians and Muslims are the richest in Nigeria. Am not saying much because almost everyone in Nigeria identifies as either Christian or Muslim
Christians need to stop looking to the past to justify their continued relevance because if we are looking to the past, we will have to recount events like the inquisition, slavery which the Christians justified with the bible and stuff like that

This is very funny... U guys are desperate to cast atheism in some terrible light, it just proves that the growth of atheism in this forum is getting to you people... I mean 7 studies that don't prove anything. U focus on these and ignore actual statistics that matter like d one that says atheists are averagely richer than theists, they are likely to be more intelligent and a higher percentage of them occupy top positions in the country.. In fact, thanks to a particular theist on this forum, I now know that as at 1998 only 7% of leading scientists have any type of belief in God. That was almost twenty years ago...
Of course, we know that atheism doesn't increase your intelligence but u become an atheist because of your higher IQ... The poorest countries have almost 100% theists population and the poorest people are religious people
I appreciate your efforts at showing atheism as a non- promising concept but the prospects of religion are not any better, in fact, they are worse

Well... Religion has always been more about psychology and emotions than actual substance

Even if Jesus existed which I believe he did, it's still not proof that he is God or the son of Gof

naijadeyhia:


smh you do not have anything to say but assumptions and guesses.

You fell when someone blew air on your forehead without hik touching you and you conveniently tagged it hypnosis when even you were not sure of what happened.

so how many times has AIR blown you down?

Oh really??... I am the one making assumptions about hypnosis but your assertion about it being the holy spirit of based on logic and evidence?? And I didn't tag it hypnosis, I said it could have been. How is the hypnosis theory less credible than the holy spirit theory

Emmanystone:

Hear the demon speaking out there?

Uhmmm... Come again but this time in English

PDBonline:
2. Significant relationship between Christian Spiritual Maturity and Emotional Intelligence
http://gradworks.umi.com/37/23/3723416.html

So there is a relationship between Christianity and emotional intelligence. And there is a relationship between emotional intelligence and success. Why are Christians not the most successful in the world??

naijadeyhia:


So how were you hypnotized? Via his voice or was it the air he blew that hypnotized you?

I don't know but hypnosis is done in diverse ways... My point is that, the fact that I fell is not conclusive proof of the holy spirit

felixomor:


Op asked, "is it normal?"
Please read the thread again.
You know i told u, u r not patient to read?
Hence your fallacies.

And besides, when i said it is not normal?
Does that unite my reasons and premise with that of the op?

I am just amazed!

All of Op's point sought to prove that it is not normal, not one to suggest it is normal... Stop pretending u are not aware of that fact...
And if your reasons and premises are different then list them

naijadeyhia:


No need for that. This is a continuation of his first IQ thread which has been demolished even by his fellow atheists. So look for that and update yourself or ask the OP for the link

There are issues raised in this thread that have not been addressed... U can't just refer to d first one and claim that this one is nonsense by association especially of they don't contain the exact same contents

PDBonline:
I'll be posting stuffs to help you and others like you

1. Forbes
https://www.google.com.ng/amp/www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2015/01/07/why-you-need-emotional-intelligence-to-succeed/?client=ms-android-samsung

Yes, emotional intelligence is very important- nothing shows that theists have the edge at this anyways- but IQ is still very important... D best scientists usually have high IQs... The Jews are the most successful people on the planet, the best doctors, lawyers, business men and even comedians are usually Jewish and they have also been shown to have higher IQs

naijadeyhia:



We slayed you in your first thread and now you open another? You are fighting a losing battle. Clearly in your first thread even with your self acclaimed high IQ you did not understand its content and we helped you explain it in simple terms and them showed you MENSA statisitics which clearly showed theists being 49% of their members and atheists 1.8% or so. Even atheists are too dumb to be allowed into MENSA.

Guy get a life.

PDBonline has even helped you explain this one as well since you also failed to understand it

Hello. It's me again... Plss address the actual statistics adduced by the Op... The one that says atheists generally have higher IQ than theists... There are loopholes in every study, I know u can find them, when u do, list them and let us address them

GrizzlyBear:
No, atheists don't have higher Iqs than theists, neither are they more intelligent than theists. That's a very foolish and simplistic thing to say.

Atheists don't also know how to think more critically or solve problems better than theists. The distinction however, is that religious belief prevents theists from utilizing the full bandwith of their intellectual capabilities when examining and accessing the contents of their beliefs.

Theists can effectively employ critical thinking and impressive problem solving skills in every other area of their lives, even in the context of appraising other religious beliefs. For instance, christians can critically examine the doctrines of Islamic beliefs and point out the factual errors and absurdities, but when it comes to critically examining their own beliefs, their brain goes blank.

Most atheists were christians before they became atheists, and were devout adherents of their faith. Would you say they had lower Iqs then? I know atheists that are as dumb as a rock, and I know theists that are smarter than I am.

The problem isn't Iqs. The problem is the power of belief, and we all respond differently to it.

Intelligent comment but let's take it a step further by positing that people with higher IQs are more likely to question their beliefs and therefore reject and abandon those beliefs... There seems to be a relationship between efficiency and skepticism

naijadeyhia:


So who pushed you down when you fell? Was it aided or unaided and did you wound yourself when you did?

Oh it was unaided.. D man just blew air on my forehead and I was immediately unconscious... But is d only explanation for that the Holy spirit.. Come on, there's what's called hypnotism

felixomor:


Please how was it?
Which part of my answer to the Op's question showed my premise?

I can see u r poor on grammar.

Mehn... Op says homosexuality is not normal, u said it's not normal, how is that not agreement??

naijadeyhia:


I am not presenting "whatever gospel". I present only one gospel and which has withstood myriads of scrutiny for thousands of years and withstood the scrutiny found in the video contained in the OP.

Young man when you fail to understand a thing due to your not experiencing it its quite understandable. Armchair critics are who they are...simply armchair critics who never get up to do tangible research of their own but gloss through articles which match their reasoning without knowing how these researches were done or the leaning of the researcher.

I can see clearly through you young man and if i did not have a personal bonafide experience myself then i would be the first to disprove it. Perhaps you should try it sometime. You just gave an example using someone else in your church...why did you not use yourself as an example? Its simply because you have no personal experience/

- u don't see anything. Don't assume. I speak in tongues too, I have literally fallen under the 'anointing' too but that's not enough proof that the holy spirit is responsible... I don't believe that an all powerful God requires people to fall and wound themselves or sometimes expose their underwear for an almighty being to impart them

felixomor:


Lol, see oyinbo, u say no see white man?
What is an analogy?

Besides, Where did i say homosexuals are not common?
And where did i use that they are rare as a premise?

Please show me.

Ur first comment was in agreement with the Op's perspective and his major point was about their few numbers... By implication u supported that viewpoint... And if u don't, then expressly tell us why you believe it is not normal... At least that was your comment.
Lest I forget: Analogy
A relationship of resemblance or equivalence between two situations, people, or objects, especially when used as a basis for explanation or extrapolation.

LaClicKLaBenDin:


This is hilarious, what sensible points did you raise that I will have to respond to?

What about the little part about atrocities committed by your master??

felixomor:


Fallacy of illogical comparison.
Otherwise called fallacy of comparing apples and oranges.

It's not comparison, it's analogy. U claim that because homosexuals are not common, they are not normal... And I made a reference to left handed people to show that rarity is not abnormality
... That I can't logically rebut an argument doesn't make it a fallacy

LaClicKLaBenDin:


Mr, you're way below my level, so, don't expect me to engage you.

I know your Master and you're all doing his bidding, albeit ignorantly.

Is that your explanation... Your response to the point I made?? All these below my level talk doesn't get to me, u don't know me, we're practically strangers.... If u don't yet have a comeback, take your time and try to reason one out... It's not that difficult, trust me

naijadeyhia:


Was the comment directed at you? Why did it prick you in particular? Pls do not derail my thread. If you knew me i never run for cover from anyone least of all your likes.

Stick to the OP

Yes, it was. It was directed at perceived enemies of whatever gospel u are trying to spread... She implied that anyone who wanted to challenge the video was serving some master

naijadeyhia:


I am not desperate about anything unlike you who is desperate to "debunk" it. Your article has nothing to do with the video simple as ABC.

If you say it does then show me.

Really, nothing... The article was in response to the research about speaking in tongues, or u didn't read the analogy to eating ice creams??

naijadeyhia:


stick to the thread and do not derail it or you will get banned

Get banned really?? U are running for cover again!! When your friend mentioned some nonsense about a master, it was okay, now I exposed the hypocrisy and u are crying foul??

felixomor:


Again, likening homosexuality to "left handedness"

The fallacies never end.

Besides, you dont even seem to know the number of replies you are mumbling up together.

That's your reply, u can't counter my point logically... Tell me d exact fallacy I committed, u are terrible at debates seriously

LaClicKLaBenDin:



I know the devices of the devil!

I know how they work and so, I said it, so no one will be surprised.

They're irredeemable... that's why I am of the opinion that we stop engaging them.

Any scientific research that doesn't support their master, they always try to debunk it, but no matter how silly any research is, as long as it serves the purpose of their master, they hold on it tenaciously. This is no coincidence!

Support their master?? U sound like a kindergarten right now... U are d only one with a master, one that has been responsible for genocides and when we challenge you on that u run away... For example, your master sent two bears to kill 42 children because they laughed at a bald man but you ignore all that and claim God is good

naijadeyhia:


cc Laclicklabendin you foresaw this.

No wonder you are confused and quoting wrongly. This video has nothing to do with gospel songs or speaking in tongues comparison. Oga abeg perhaps your typing and responding to me is also purely psychological.

If the video is not new to you then say what the content is and the name of the Pastor who was tested along with others.

If you do not have the data needed to watch the video you would have simply said so and something could have been arranged for you as a buffer.

It's amazing how u are so desperate to protect the integrity of your video even to the point of insults... the study was conducted by University of Pennsylvania school of medicine, Andrew Newberg led the research.
U completely ignored the link I posted which actually shows why speaking in tongues is not spiritual.. That some thing is weird and creepy doesn't make it spiritual.
I remember in my church during a particular Holy spirit session where people were falling and my aunty sustained injuries and I was like really?? The Holy spirit didn't foresee this??

naijadeyhia:


You did not watch the video. Any comment that comes out of your mouth must involve your brain and the frontal lobe is that seat of involvement. Be it Gibberish or whatever it must involve the use of your brain but this does not.

Are you a science student?

This video is not new to me... In fact, there's an article on new York times that details the experiment thoroughly... But it has been debunked as evidence of the spiritual nature of speaking in tongues. It's fundamentally psychological. See here http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2006/11/thinking_in_tongues.html

naijadeyhia:


And what does that translate to?

Let me paraphrase

When speaking known language the test subjects engaged their frontal lobes which showed human effort but when speaking in tongues the frontal lobe was not in use which shows it was not by their effort.

Those tests were carried out on Buddhists and others and showed that they engaged their frontal lobes so what makes speaking in tongues different from them all and clearly showing no human participation in the brain?

Can you draw your conclussion?

If u are speaking gibberish it doesn't require your reasoning ability so it's understandable that the frontal lobes were not engaged... I mean, they are practically saying nonsense