₦airaland Forum

Lalaosky!!

I do like my food spiked, princess. Just not with poison!

LOL! This is not a kitchen, babe. Or are you referring to something else?

Thou hast benighted me; thy set
This eve of blackness did beget,
Who wast my day (tho' overcast
Before thou hadst thy noontide past):
And I remember must in tears
Thou scarce hadst seen so many years
As day tells hours.

Spiked is coming to dinner at my house tonight.

Who cares about English spelling mistakes and grammar? We shouldn't be speaking the language anyway.

There is an ideological war being prosecuted on the streets of London, with opposing causes championed on the sides and backs of lumbering red buses. It is bloodless in principle, but not without casualties in practice. This is a contest for rights; the right to faith, the right to believe, the right to disbelieve and the right to disagree. This is a battle about the existence of the entity generally known simply as God. On the one hand are the atheists, whose position can be condensed into the statement; “There is no God”. On the other hand are the theists, whose position can be broadly summarized in the following sentence; “God exists, and he created the universe”. These descriptions are oversimplifications, of course. Many people do not fall into either of these two extremes, but take positions that range from “I do not know for certain, but I strongly believe in God” to “I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable”. The worldview represented by the latter statement is encapsulated in the following words printed on a placard at the side of a red London bus: “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.

As a first step towards clarifying my position in this controversy, I will attempt to define God. In the most traditional and monotheistic sense, God is an infinite, unlimited entity that possesses infinite knowledge. This definition immediately poses a contextual problem. What exactly is infinity? In an anthropological setting, expressions such as “infinite” and “limitless” have no meaning. The mathematical concept of infinity is abstract; but what does it mean in a real, material, finite world? Consider the following quantities: two drops of water, four hundred sheep, a million dollars, and an infinite amount of water. While it is possible to conceptualise the first three examples, it is impossible to do the same for the last. Even if it were possible to conceptualise an infinite amount of water, it would occupy an infinite amount of space, which is impossible in a finite world. My point is this: it is impossible to define an infinite God in a complete and exhaustive sense within a finite context. It may nonetheless be possible to partially characterize certain aspects of God using finite expressions of the human experience, provided that such an entity interfaces with the human consciousness. In addition to this, any definition of God inherently implies the existence of such an entity, otherwise one gets trapped in a logical impasse. How does one describe something that does not exist?

This difficulty with defining God highlights another conceptual issue. Lack of belief in the supernatural denies the existence of God. In its most extreme form, atheism says “there is no God”. Such an assertion is not sustainable for the following reason: an absolute assertion must be predicated on either possession of infinite knowledge, or access to such knowledge. Therefore, to say “there is no God” is to say “I possess infinite knowledge, and I know so”. This is a rather precarious position to take, and it is no surprise that few well-informed people make such an assertion. It is far more sensible to adopt a position that is based on the balance of probabilities. Such a position says that “within the limits of my finite human experience, I have seen no evidence that objectively, conclusively and consistently proves the existence of God. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, God does not exist”. In other words, there is probably no God.

In contrast, theism in general asserts that God exists, and Christianity in particular insists that God is personal and interfaces with the finite human experience. Let us consider the Christian position for a moment. Is this a sustainable position? By the previous definition, absolute statements require infinite knowledge, or access to such knowledge. Man obviously does not possess infinite knowledge, so the answer must lie in access to such knowledge. The atheist cannot claim access to infinite knowledge since atheism denies the existence of God, who possesses such knowledge by definition. But the Christian, who believes in a God that interfaces with the human experience, can claim to have obtained such knowledge by access. Based on such a premise, the assertion that “God exists” is sustainable. But this raises the question of validity. How can such a claim be verified? If such a claim cannot be verified, then it has no real value. Christianity claims that this assertion is verified in both personal and collective experiences. It is practically impossible to subject personal experiences to the criteria of reproducibility and objectivity for two reasons. Firstly, if God is infinite, then the human experience of God will be potentially different for every person, even if there were an infinite number of people in existence. This will make it potentially impossible to reproduce such an experience consistently. Secondly, if the experience of God is personal, then inherent subjectivity is implied. The human psyche is complicated, and such experiences are bound to be communicated differently. So where does that leave us?

The Christian position is this: extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The one proof of the existence of God was in the collective experience of one man, Jesus Christ, who claimed he was God; an infinite God in finite human form. This was an extraordinary claim. The extraordinary proof in this case was that of his resurrection - literal and not merely figurative resurrection, according to history. In addition to providing evidence to support Jesus’ claim of the existence of God, this event also provided evidence to support another claim of his; that there is an existence beyond the present. In this existence, the finite becomes enveloped by the infinite, and man is held accountable by God. This remarkable combination of events has not been replicated since then, thus the entire Christian worldview of God hinges on a single piece of evidence. However, because this evidence is sufficiently extraordinary, was experienced historically in a collective sense, and is being validated presently in a personal sense, it is my position that it is adequate. If I am wrong, and this is someday proven to be false by contrary evidence of equal weight, then it will ultimately not matter. But what if I am right, and this is true?

The buses in London are like mobile billboards. Their sides are replete with signs advertising all sorts of companies, products, events and ideological standpoints. Recently, one of such signs attracted my attention, and I will conclude by quoting from it. “There is probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life. And pray that you are not wrong.”

_{©2009 by Genial}

@Topic (apologies if some have been posted before. Can't be bothered to first go through 64 pages!)
Ukwa ruo oge ya, o daa.
Okuko siri na ya nyuo ahuru ikuku e buru isi ya, o maghi na ikuku anaghi eku naani otu uzo.
Atuo ilu nkirinka nkata, onye tara ahu amara.
Onye na-ezo isi ya n'elu nkwu amaghi na onye no n'ala na-ahu otule ya.
Unu anwule, unu anwule - unu nwukene ka-amara ihe ga-eme!
Onye na-agba oso ka o buru uzo kpughee nkata, o makwa ihe di n'ime nkata?
Agbaa mbu, o tu n'ogwe, agbaa abuo, o tu n'ogwe - o bu so ogwe ka-apiiri aku?
Nwa ngwui puo eze o tagbuo onye nwe ya.
Onye putara ura ututu nwa okuko achuwa ya oso, ya gbawa oso maka o maghi ma nwa okuko epuru eze n'abali.
Nwata palie nna ya elu, mkpuru ihe ayochie ya anya!

pres-elect:
ify, igaruru owerri? isi na govano na agbali? eeeh? o choochi ya jisike

ify a no m central london. agaghi m ala easter nke a, ego koro m baaad
ego kochara m eeh, eji ukwu kpagharia south london for 2 weeks, maka ejighi m buss pass. imagine. but ogaghi eme again kamakwa m gaa hotel ahu police jidere tosh na agaba, gaa there ga ruo cleaner for one month

Ama m na obughi m ka i na-agwa, ma na ihe a toro m ochi. Ewela iwe biko!

Unu jisiekwa ike!

Horus:
[flash=450,350]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6Ggy80bj1g[/flash]

Smoke & Mirrors - (Nigeria's First CGI Movie)

The Smoke & Mirrors Movie was made employing similar techniques used to produce movies like SIN CITY, 300, and SKY CAPTAIN & THE WORLD OF TOMORROW. The movie was shot on a sound stage in Veritas Studios, Lagos, against a green screen backdrop. The entire environment was then placed in using computer generated imagery (CGI). It was financed by Adonijah Owiriwa of ADONIS PRODUTIONS, produced by Ibironke Ojesebholo of CEROMS MEDIA, & directed by Ehiz Ojesebholo of NANTOONS STUDIOS in 2008, in Nollywood, Nigeria.
SMOKE & MIRRORS was recently nominated at the African Movie Academy Awards (AMAA) for Achievement in Visual Effects.

Cool idea. When is it out?

I cannot believe that no one has as yet nominated me!
I have been outstanding in more ways than one. Remind me to tell you a few at a later date. I do not wish to overload my modesty at this time.

Well, *clears throat*, ladies and gentlemen, for the honour of the most outstandingly absentee member of nairaland

I nominate,

Geniall.

Observations, what observations? Unless you carried out a properly designed experiment, with a proper control, then your observation is worth very little.
Let's get to the point. . .  I don't know. 
Could go either way depending on the conditions

Cool, thanks! I'm going to try it this weekend.

lawyer:
why does Arsène mock us like this?! I feel so used and naked all of a sudden

Manutd sign berbatov, man city sign robihno and arsenal gives Eboue an extended 4 year contract, pssff!

LOL!!! What an illustration!
Take heart, mister. It's not over until Arsene sings.

KarmaMod:
By a simple Hello, obviously.

Not as obvious as you think. You'd be surprised at the many varieties of mental states that interfere with the ability to think rationally.

The guy looking to screw would know about her mental state from the beginning, it's the fact that he decides to ignore that makes him a criminal.

Well, see my post above. Mental incapacity is not always immediately obvious, and is even less so when you're sodden.

KarmaMod:
If a retarded person says Yes then it's ok to sleep with them considering the fact \mopre likely then not they probably don't even know what intercourse is?

LOL, point taken. But you do know that the mental state of such a person has to be established first of all, don't you?

and for someone who is drunk. WHO CARES if Yes is said? Their thinking capacity is IMPAIRED.

So everyone that has sex while drunk is potentially being raped. I can already see all sorts of opportunities there  

What is wrong with you people?

My, what indignation!  

mesmya:
then they will know that during their time dey did it,take our parents now,they still do it,while some don't,but looking at their kids they just can't stop thanking God because it was through that act that their kids were form and their kids will continue from where dey stopped

We're talking of a wife, and this assumes the man and woman are married, right? What's that got to do with having children?

4 Play:
The only grey area is what happens where the woman is not in a position to give consent for reasons of intoxication or mental incapacity.

And in such a case it cannot be rightly called rape until it is established that consent was not given.

idupaul:
so is there anything like justified rape?

No, provided that the term "rape" is used correctly and in the right context.

onyinye2:
But what is the point of being "interesting" if you can't cook? I don't care how "interesting" you are but if you can't cook for your man. . . . what he finds interesting in you. . . . will turn to boredom.

What? Cooking is not a dark art. If you're smart enough to do algebra, surely you can learn to cook? And men can cook too, but a man (usually - now don't take this too far  ) can't  have sex with or talk to himself.

Just to clarify (it looks like I'm contradicting myself there, doesn't it?  ), if you're going to spend more than half your life with someone, you want to still be able to stay around/ with them even when you can't eat their food or have sex with them.

mesmya:
sm people can be so interesting and be poor in bed and cooking,does that mean d man will stay wt them too,hells no babes

but if a woman is good at cooking and sexing  d only thing that can make the man go out is just too hang out wt other babes ,but when it comes to being unfaithful he wouldnt,because he knows that d wife is good in bed(real men anyways)

Or he could be unfaithful with books in a library somewhere. You can feed on only sex and food for so long. Sooner or later you want some sensible conversation/ intellectual stimulation before your brain turns to mush. And guess what? There are women that are good at sex, cooking, and are interesting too.

Hannibal:
Men are NOT designed to say NO after penetration, senora.
The wetness and warmth of a woman's clutch is so hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Too bad they're such numbskulls, always ending up on the losing side.

onyinye2:
Start shopping for your strip jump suit and add hand cuff while you are at it.

Those are free in this part of the world. Full scholarship.

Hannibal:
@ Geniall,

Once the babe in question whimpers a weak NO. . . . . even after penetration, it is deemed to be RAPE.

My point is, once it's called "rape", it becomes criminal. So the topic is kind of begging the question.
As to your point, what if the guy says a brisk no, even after penetration, isn't he being raped? 

yemmyse:
riskie

I am a male o o. wahala talai. I am male and ina sunki, wahala.

Back off, buster.

@ topic

What?
Then why is it called rape? Me understandeth not this argument. . .

As a matter of fact, Riskie is married.

To me.

4 Play:
If you believe the US can replace close to 13m barrels p/d of oil within 10 years,kudos to you. If you also believe there is some technology in the pipeline which will make this possible within that time frame,I bow and tremble at your ''wisdom''.

You'd better bow and tremble. If there was one, would you know it? Your attempt at sarcasm is funny.

Invoking JFK is risible because the economic and technological challenges towards meeting the 2 goals were vastly different. JFK's promise was prompted by the scientific community's perception of what is technically feasible,there had been an unmanned landing by the less advanced Soviets as far back as 1959.

"Vastly" different economic and technological challenges? You can't refrain from using melodramatic adjectives that make nonsense of your argument, can you? In what sense are the economic and technological challenges "vastly" different? If anything, such a promise would make more sense now than it would have then. Maybe you don't think the experiments by major car manufacturers such as Cadillac, Chevrolet and Toyota with hybrid vehicles, biomass CHP combustion engines, electric engines and nuclear energy are similar to landing an unmanned flight on the moon. Not surprising.

Unless Obama's expertise has suddenly included the energy sector,I will like to see him cite experts in the field who think his promise is possible within that time frame.

So if he cites them, then the "impossible" promise suddenly becomes possible? Tut-tut. Told ya. You shouldn't have used that word "impossible" unless you knew what you were talking about.

Nor is that claim,ending energy dependence in 10 years,the sole such ludicrous claim he has made.

I really couldn't care less about his other claims. Energy dependence is what we're talking about.

4 Play:
Issues that are quite frankly irrelevant as far as Presidents are concerned. They can't change much.

I saw Obama promising to end America's dependence on foreign oil within the next 10 years[impossible],end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq[he can only end America's involvement],e.t.c I was thinking,don't educated people feel offended when politicans shamelessly and repeatedly insult their intelligence by promising things they can't do in return for votes?

In everyday life,if someone were to promise you the impossible in return for your help,don't you get irritated ?

What exactly is impossible about his promises? What's impossible about ending dependence on foreign oil in 10 years? I would be a lot more cautious about using the word "impossible", because improvements in our knowledge and scientific breakthroughs are quickly changing our definition of what's possible and what's not.

You could say it's highly unlikely, given historical precedents, and you would be absolutely right. But tell that to John Kennedy, who promised to put a man on the moon within 10 years. Foolish, impractical and a promise only a brash, inveterate romantic could make but, guess what? It happened.

You maybe don't realise how quickly scientific breakthroughs can turn technology around. But "impossible" is not a word to bandy around carelessly.

And, no, some educated people don't get offended when people make impossible promises, maybe because they know that what may be impossible today may yet become possible tomorrow.

Incest?

What was Paul (the apostle)'s citizenship by birth?