The system is so sickening.

jesu christi na wetin just dey do me be dat chisos. christ. guy i b think say na just me. like seriously am very very surprised, to see one just like me. sometimes i feel like throwing up. oboy me sef kom taya for meself.

Four Nigerian farmers will have the chance to sue Shell, the multinational oil and gas company, in the Netherlands for pollution they blame on leaking pipelines, a Dutch appeals court has ruled. The farmers, backed by the Dutch branch of environmental group Friends of the Earth, first filed the case in 2008 against Shell in the Netherlands, wanting the Anglo- Dutch company to clean up devastating oil spills in four heavily polluted villages in Nigeria's oil-rich Niger Delta. The case also asked Shell to prevent further spills and to pay compensation. Shell had argued that it had no liability in the case and that Dutch courts did not have jurisdiction. "It cannot be established in advance that the parent company is not liable for possible negligence of the Nigerian operating company," The Hague Appeals Court said in a statement. Shell said it would comment after studying the decision. Activists said Friday's ruling sets a landmark legal precedent that clears the way for Netherlands- based companies to be sued for alleged negligence of their subsidiaries elsewhere in the world. "There is now jurisprudence that means victims of human rights violations or pollution can sue Dutch multinationals in the Netherlands," said Geert Ritsema of the Dutch arm of Friends of the Earth. In 2013, judges rejected most of the case, saying pipeline leaks were caused by saboteurs, not Shell negligence. The decision means the case can proceed, most likely next year. In one case, the judges ordered a subsidiary - Shell Nigeria - to compensate a farmer for breach of duty of care by making it too easy for saboteurs to open an oil well head that leaked on to his land. READ MORE: Who is stealing Nigeria's oil? In another victory for the plaintiffs, the court also ordered Shell to give the farmers and environmental activists supporting their case access to internal documents that could shed more light on the case. Shell's local subsidiary is the top foreign oil producer in the Niger Delta, an oil-rich region of mangroves and swamps about the size of Portugal. Its production forms the backbone of crude production in Nigeria. Shell, which discovered and started tapping the country's oil reserves in the late 1950s, has been heavily criticised by activists and local communities over oil spills and close ties to government security forces. Source: Agencies. reuters.

Bola4mi:
no o i am apcpdp

lol ok lets wait for apcpdp result

Bola4mi:
Baba God noni

are u an apc supporter

Bola4mi:
Baba God noni

are u an apc fan?

kano
apc : 1,903,999
pdp : 215,779

katsina
apc : 1,345,441
pdp : 98,937

kaduna
apc : 1,127,760
pdp : 484,085

ekiti
pdp : 176,466
apc : 120,331

abuja
pdp: 157,195
apc: 146,399

ogun
apc: 308,290
pdp: 207,950

nassarawa
pdp: 273,460
apc: 236,838

ogun
apc: 308,290
pdp: 207,950

kogi
apc: 264,851
pdp: 149,987

ondo
apc: 299,889
pdp: 251,368

jigawa
apc: 885,988
pdp: 142,904

kwara
apc: 302,146
pdp: 132,602

oyo
apc: 528,620
pdp: 303,376

enugu
pdp: 553,003
apc: 14,157

osun
apc: 333,603
pdp: 249,929

anambra
pdp: 660,762
apc: 17,926

abia
pdp: 368,303
apc: 13,394

akwa ibom
pdp: 953,304
apc: 58411

imo
pdp: 559,185
apc: 133,253

plateau
pdp: 549,615
apc: 429,615



thats all for now. we are now awaiting collation of other states.

5minsmadness:

What atheists don't understand is that their lies are getting old. The world is more rotten and more morally corrupt than it was in the past and no amount of acting 'Spartacus having sex in a table in front of a group of romans' to twist history will cover that.

Define the term 'myopic' and how it relates to this topic.

you should keep the bible aside and reason for urself for once, without being sentimental then u'll uderstand atheism is the right path. and for the record u are myopic.

The APC has been consistent in saying that
PDP
has ruled Nigeria for 16 disastrous years
in which
corruption, impunity, insurgency, armed
robbery
and several ills of society held sway.
But watch out some of the APC chieftains
saying
this now their positions within the "16
disastrous
years":
1. Rotimi Amaechi – 8 years speaker
under PDP,
and 7 years Governor under PDP = 15
years in
PDP.
2. Atiku Abubakar – 8 years Vice president
under
PDP.
3. George Akume – 8 years Governor
under PDP.
4. Bukola Saraki – 8 years Governor, and
2 years,
Senator under PDP = 10 years.
5. Timipre Sylver – 4 years Governor
under PDP.
6. Audu Ogbe – 2 years Chairmanship of
the PDP.
7. Aminu Masari – 4 years as the Speaker,
House
of Representatives under PDP.
8. Chris Ngige – 3 years Governor under
PDP.
9. Rabiu Kwankwaso – 7 years Governor
under
PDP, and 3 years Defense minister under
PDP= 10
years.
10. El Rufai – 4 years FCT Minister under
PDP,
and 2 years BPE chairman under PDP = 6
years.
11. And to cap it all, Obasanjo is the
navigator of
the APC, a man who spent 8 of the
disastrous 16
years as the maximum ruler of Nigeria.
It is now clearer that APC is a waste
basket of
the PDP, where the people who created and
perpetuated the 16 disastrous years and
now
dumped. So where is the change coming
from?
Are they now saints overnight because
they joined
APC?
Please be WISE and VOTE against the
ASSOCIATION OF PAST CRIMINALS (APC ).
MY QUESTIONS REMAINS-WHO IS GOING
TO
CHANGE NIGERIA ? The people or the
party? GEJ is still the trusted ONE, Vote...
GEJ come Feb 14, 2015.

yeah it is.

GIRLFRIEND: Baby, ever since you
slept with
me you've not called me, texted me,
flashed
me, replied my texts or even returned
my
calls! What's the problem dear?
BOYFRIEND: Nothing o. Have you ever
seen a
president still campaigning after
winning an
election?...lmao abeg na joke oh

www.alternet.org/story/154774/the_top_10_reasons_i_don't_believe_in_god

why are we debating if god is alive when he never existed. Reasons :

1: The consistent replacement of
supernatural explanations of the
world with natural ones.
When you look at the history of what
we know about the world, you see a
noticeable pattern. Natural
explanations of things have been
replacing supernatural explanations of
them. Like a steamroller. Why the Sun
rises and sets. Where thunder and
lightning come from. Why people get
sick. Why people look like their
parents. How the complexity of life
came into being. I could go on and on.
All these things were once explained
by religion. But as we understood the
world better, and learned to observe it
more carefully, the explanations
based on religion were replaced by
ones based on physical cause and
effect. Consistently. Thoroughly. Like
a steamroller. The number of times
that a supernatural explanation of a
phenomenon has been replaced by a
natural explanation? Thousands upon
thousands upon thousands.
Now. The number of times that a
natural explanation of a phenomenon
has been replaced by a supernatural
one? The number of times humankind
has said, "We used to think (X) was
caused by physical cause and effect,
but now we understand that it's
caused by God, or spirits, or demons,
or the soul"?
Exactly zero.
Sure, people come up with new
supernatural "explanations" for stuff
all the time. But explanations with
evidence? Replicable evidence?
Carefully gathered, patiently tested,
rigorously reviewed evidence?
Internally consistent evidence? Large
amounts of it, from many different
sources? Again -- exactly zero.
Given that this is true, what are the
chances that any given phenomenon
for which we currently don't have a
thorough explanation -- human
consciousness, for instance, or the
origin of the Universe -- will be best
explained by the supernatural?
Given this pattern, it's clear that the
chances of this are essentially zero.
So close to zero that they might as
well be zero. And the hypothesis of the
supernatural is therefore a hypothesis
we can discard. It is a hypothesis we
came up with when we didn't
understand the world as well as we do
now... but that, on more careful
examination, has never once been
shown to be correct.
If I see any solid evidence to support
God, or any supernatural explanation
of any phenomenon, I'll reconsider my
disbelief. Until then, I'll assume that
the mind-bogglingly consistent
pattern of natural explanations
replacing supernatural ones is almost
certain to continue.
(Oh -- for the sake of brevity, I'm
generally going to say "God" in this
chapter when I mean "God, or the soul,
or metaphysical energy, or any sort of
supernatural being or substance." I
don't feel like getting into discussions
about, "Well, I don't believe in an old
man in the clouds with a white beard,
but I believe..." It's not just the man in
the white beard that I don't believe in.
I don't believe in any sort of religion,
any sort of soul or spirit or
metaphysical guiding force, anything
that isn't the physical world and its
vast and astonishing manifestations.

2: The inconsistency of world
religions.
If God (or any other metaphysical
being or beings) were real, and people
were really perceiving him/ her/ it/
them, why do these perceptions differ
so wildly?
When different people look at, say, a
tree, we more or less agree about
what we're looking at: what size it is,
what shape, whether it currently has
leaves or not and what color those
leaves are, etc. We may have
disagreements regarding the tree --
what other plants it's most closely
related to, where it stands in the
evolutionary scheme, should it be cut
down to make way for a new sports
stadium, etc. But unless one of us is
hallucinating or deranged or literally
unable to see, we can all agree on the
tree's basic existence, and the basic
facts about it.
This is blatantly not the case for God.
Even among people who do believe in
God, there is no agreement about what
God is, what God does, what God
wants from us, how he acts or doesn't
act on the world, whether he's a he,
whether there's one or more of him,
whether he's a personal being or a
diffuse metaphysical substance. And
this is among smart, thoughtful people.
What's more, many smart, thoughtful
people don't even think God exists.
And if God existed, he'd be a whole lot
bigger, a whole lot more powerful,
with a whole lot more effect in the
world, than a tree. Why is it that we
can all see a tree in more or less the
same way, but we don't see God in
even remotely the same way?
The explanation, of course, is that God
does not exist. We disagree so
radically over what he is because we
aren't perceiving anything that's real.
We're "perceiving" something we
made up; something we were taught to
believe; something that the part of our
brain that's wired to see pattern and
intention, even when none exists, is
inclined to see and believe.

3: The weakness of religious
arguments, explanations, and
apologetics.
I have seen a lot of arguments for the
existence of God. And they all boil
down to one or more of the following:
The argument from authority.
(Example: "God exists because the
Bible says God exists." The argument
from personal experience. (Example:
"God exists because I feel in my heart
that God exists." The argument that
religion shouldn't have to logically
defend its claims. (Example: "God is
an entity that cannot be proven by
reason or evidence." Or the
redefining of God into an abstract
principle... so abstract that it can't be
argued against, but also so abstract
that it scarcely deserves the name
God. (Example: "God is love."
And all these arguments are
ridiculously weak.
Sacred books and authorities can be
mistaken. I have yet to see a sacred
book that doesn't have any mistakes.
(The Bible, to give just one example, is
shot full of them.) And the feelings in
people's hearts can definitely be
mistaken. They are mistaken,
demonstrably so, much of the time.
Instinct and intuition play an important
part in human understanding and
experience... but they should never be
treated as the final word on a subject.
I mean, if I told you, "The tree in front
of my house is 500 feet tall with hot
pink leaves," and I offered as a
defense, "I know this is true because
my mother/ preacher/ sacred book
tells me so"... or "I know this is true
because I feel it in my heart"... would
you take me seriously?
Some people do try to prove God's
existence by pointing to evidence in
the world. But that evidence is
inevitably terrible. Pointing to the
perfection of the Bible as a historical
and prophetic document, for
instance... when it so blatantly is
nothing of the kind. Or pointing to the
fine-tuning of the Universe for life...
even though this supposedly perfect
fine-tuning is actually pretty crappy ,
and the conditions that allow for life
on Earth have only existed for the
tiniest fragment of the Universe's
existence and are going to be boiled
away by the Sun in about a billion
years. Or pointing to the complexity of
life and the world and insisting that it
must have been designed... when the
sciences of biology and geology and
such have provided far, far better
explanations for what seems, at first
glance, like design.
As to the argument that "We don't have
to show you any reason or evidence,
it's unreasonable and intolerant for
you to even expect that"... that's
conceding the game before you've
even begun. It's like saying, "I know I
can't make my case -- therefore I'm
going to concentrate my arguments on
why I don't have to make my case in
the first place." It's like a defense
lawyer who knows their client is
guilty, so they try to get the case
thrown out on a technicality.
Ditto with the "redefining God out of
existence" argument. If what you
believe in isn't a supernatural being or
substance that has, or at one time had,
some sort of effect on the world...
well, your philosophy might be an
interesting one, but it is not, by any
useful definition of the word, religion.

Weah96:


E=MC^2.

Mass times speed of light squared is energy. Do you want me to show you something with mass? Have you seen light before?

pls tell them ilogical christians.

anthoniosp:
abi ooh na true true big bang theory..no b only big bang theory na sheldon cooper...mtcheew

i cant argue with you because of your sense of reasoning.

anthoniosp:
just in a thread closeby you said you where a creation of nature and biology..I posed a question 2 you that you answered by saying nature recreates itself...but what ever has a recreation once had a creation...

* The big bang theory*

Misogynist2014:
The only criteria one must use to be an atheist is if he can prove God doesn't exist and not if he can't prove God exist, for if one chooses the later, he will have to follow through faith, making him a foöl for risking putting his life in eternal hell, where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Are you prepared to take the risk?

Misogynist2014:
The only criteria one must use to be an atheist is if he can prove God doesn't exist and not if he can't prove God exist, for if one chooses the later, he will have to follow through faith, making him a foöl for risking putting his life in eternal hell, where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Are you prepared to take the risk?

Religion is an infinite amount
of nonsense one can know about
nothing.


Am not taking any risk following the right path bro. the risk shud b not following the right path. like i said b4 understanding with d heart is not understanding, i cant follow or believe in sumtin because of emotion but rather i'd use logical and rationale analysis to verify what I want to believe.

When I was a kid I had an
imaginary friend and I used to
think that he went everywhere
with me, and that I could talk to
him and that he could hear me, and
that he could grant me wishes and
stuff. And then I grew up, and I
stopped going to church. Bro Believe nothing,
No matter where you read it,
Or who has said it,
Not even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own
reason
And your own common sense.

Now I''ll leave u to answer this quest.

Have all the clergymen, monks, friars,
ministers, priests, bishops, cardinals
and popes, from the day of
Pentecost to the last election, done
as much for human liberty as
Thomas Paine? — as much for
science as Charles Darwin?

Misogynist2014:
The only criteria one must use to be an atheist is if he can prove God doesn't exist and not if he can't prove God exist, for if one chooses the later, he will have to follow through faith, making him a foöl for risking putting his life in eternal hell, where there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Are you prepared to take the risk?

Religion is an infinite amount
of nonsense one can know about
nothing.


Am not taking any risk following the right path bro. the risk shud b not following the right path. like i said b4 understanding with d heart is not understanding, i cant follow or believe in sumtin because of emotion but rather i'd use logical and rationale analysis to verify what I want to believe.

When I was a kid I had an
imaginary friend and I used to
think that he went everywhere
with me, and that I could talk to
him and that he could hear me, and
that he could grant me wishes and
stuff. And then I grew up, and I
stopped going to church. Bro Believe nothing,
No matter where you read it,
Or who has said it,
Not even if I have said it,
Unless it agrees with your own
reason
And your own common sense.

Now I''ll leave u to answer this quest.

Have all the clergymen, monks, friars,
ministers, priests, bishops, cardinals
and popes, from the day of
Pentecost to the last election, done
as much for human liberty as
Thomas Paine? — as much for
science as Charles Darwin?

Misogynist2014:
Are you sure God doesn't exist? I know my question is off point.

bro he doesn't.

Misogynist2014:
Answer under each point.

jes name a point u ar interested in.


follow d link..

www.seesharppress.com/20reasons.html

AjFive:
I skip prayers, I don't pray at all. I've got so many doubts, I'm starting to doubt the existence of God. Is the Bible truly the word of God... So many questions.

Is there anyone out there like me?


AJ_FIVE

20 facts to leave christianity

1. Christianity is based on fear
2. Christianity preys on the innocent
3. Christianity is based on dishonesty
4. Christianity is extremely egocentric
5. Christianity breeds arrogance, a
chosen-people mentality
6. Christianity breeds authoritarianism
7. Christianity is cruel
8. Christianity is anti-intellectual, anti-
scientific
9. Christianity has a morbid,
unhealthy preoccupation with sex
10. Christianity produces sexual misery
11. Christianity has an exceedingly
narrow, legalistic view of morality
12. Christianity encourages acceptance
of real evils while focusing on
imaginary evils
13. Christianity depreciates the natural
world
14. Christianity models hierarchical,
authoritarian organization
15. Christianity sanctions slavery
16. Christianity is misogynistic
17. Christianity is homophobic
18. The Bible is not a reliable guide to
Christ's teachings
19. The Bible is riddled with
contradictions
20. Christianity borrowed its central
myths and ceremonies from other
ancient religions.

Hiswordxray:

Since you people like proof can you prove he is lying?
Can you prove that his story is false?
if not then SHUT UP!!!

can u prove its true?. bring a video of d incident, a medical result of d acclaimed deadbody, b4 we start to talk for now i think ur head nd his are thicker than a block dat no amount of gamma ray can pass thru it.

spacyzuma:


I love, LOVE!, this statement! Thanks for sharing it.

ya u are welcome.

my miracle. i woke up one morning i was feeling cold didnt knw wat to do, so sumfin told me to boil water, i did after some time, to my greatest surprise the water started boiling wen i dipped my hand inside the hot water it burnt me....
halleluia

i neva knew hot boiling water can burn, now i knw. ohhh its a miracle.


Dats hw ya'll xtian miracle sounds like

undercat:


Meaningless statement. The rationale for atheism is very clear. Unless you are assuming that anybody who understands it must then become an atheist, that statement is so meaningless. Not everybody is easily swayed, man.

in
addition, most monotheists may
reject other gods because their
religion states that there’s only one
God. That’s clearly not the reason
atheists reject all gods.

undercat:


Meaningless statement. The rationale for atheism is very clear. Unless you are assuming that anybody who understands it must then become an atheist, that statement is so meaningless. Not everybody is easily swayed, man.

To understand via the heart is not
to understand.

A favorite of mine, in a similar vein
to the Seneca the Younger quote:
“If we go back to the beginning we
shall find that ignorance and fear
created the gods, that fancy
enthusiasm or deceit adorned them,
that weakness worships them, that
credulity preserves them, and that
custom respect and tyranny support
them in order to make the
blindness of men serve their own
interests".

God does not
work in mysterious ways – he
works in ways that are
indistinguishable from his non-
existence

ezehy:
that's why Jesus they won't believe until they see signs and wonders I myself have prayed for d sick and they recovered my friend have prayed for d dead and d person came back to live in fedpoly bida I am still waiting for an oppurtunity dats how Christians supposed to live on earth lifewithout fear I tell u d truth I myself will choose d day I will live dis earth

my friend either u are a liar or u wer decieved by d friend (s).

An atheist doesn’t have to be
someone who thinks he has a proof
that there can’t be a god. He only
has to be someone who believes
that the evidence on the God
question is at a similar level to the
evidence on the werewolf question.

Give a man a fish and he will eat
for a day; teach a man to fish and
he will eat for a lifetime; give a
man religion and he will die
praying for a fish.

okay
seen☑☑✔. buh madrid for ever, ronaldo till my grand moda can read and write.

undercat:
You're being a little too hasty here.

There are religions other than christianity. Non christian does not equal atheist, you know. If you reject YHWH, what about the other forms of God? Your bible based objections certainly don't apply to them. If these are the only objections you have, I'm afraid you are not atheist.

And how sure are you that atheism is not the delusion? You know that once you admit to the possibility that God exists, you admit that you might be wrong, at the very least. At most, you would have conceded that God exists, according to one nasty variant of the ontological argument.

The issue of whether Adam and Eve could have populated the earth in 6000 years was recently raised on here, and it was discovered that they can, mathematically. Assuming that they have two children who both go on to have two chlidren each who also go on to have two children each, and assuming they do this every 30 years, then in 6000 years the offspring of Adam and Eve would have become 2^200, which is probably enough to populate even Jupiter.

This is why you need more objections.

When you understand why
you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will
understand why we (atheists) dismiss yours.