₦airaland Forum

Joshthefirst:
@ op and johnydon22.

-What do you mean by live in the now? Do you mean live like a chimp? A mosquito? If death is the end, then how is life worth living? How do you break away from meaninglessness as an atheist?

Meaninglessness? ..lol.. when will you lot understand that "meaning" is a child of the human mind.

A star is the bedrock of the existence of organism, is your existence more meaningful than that of a star? water? plants?

there is no special attachment to what nature does, the same fate holds true for the totality of natural values.

Nothing is more special than the other that idea or special attachment is subjective to distinct observers.

-Maybe because a plate of Rice and fried chicken finishes, it is not worth eating at all..

The worth of that plate of rice is not in it's ability not to finish but the fact that you got to eat it in the first place and it's limit makes it all the more valuable.

So too "life" on earth is not defined by it's limits. .

That you will die means you got to live, many will never die cus they never lived..

The assumption of an eternal life is actually the idea that makes this life meaningless.

An unending life makes 100years look like nothing, how would one value 1naira when he thinks there is $100,000,000 waiting for him in an account.

so too can one not value the 100, 80 or less years of human existence in contrast to 10000000000000000....years of a fantasy afterlife.

So the "meaning" of life lies within the limits of life and that "meaning" is rubbished by the concept of another unending life waiting somewhere else.

In this case, the one who holds a belief of an eternal unending infinite life, is the one that makes this life to be meaningless..

-Why do you think the human mind is selfish and greedy when it recognizes and wishes for immortality? How is it greedy to live forever?

Very greedy and selfish that you are not done with what you have already wishing and clamoring for an unlimited one.

You are only sure of this life, and you have it without even asking for it. Clamoring for another (unlimited) is not only selfish but an outstanding greed wowed by the fact that you are not even done yet with the one you have.

There are organisms that spend only 9 hours alive but yet in your ego you prize yourself as deserving another life ..

OneManLegion:
Your skepticism is understandable but I'm afraid you didn't dig deep enough.

A lot of people made UFO sightings in Zimbabwe few days prior to that incidence.

The kids tried to get the woman who sold confectionery but the woman wouldn't leave her shop because she doubted the children's story and didn't want to leave her shop vulnerable to thieves.

You see, the children were asked(by the psychotherapist) to sketch what they saw(the alien and the UFO) and they ALL drew something similar.

They were interviewed individually and they all gave similar accounts of the events that took place.

Most importantly, they were not exposed to the "UFO sightings" craze and couldn't have made it up.

That event remains one of the most convincing UFO sighting incident ever.

That is quite intriguing but still doesn't account to the fact no other person saw that particular event that only the kids saw.

If a flying machine suddenly appears in the sky close for people to see majority would see it not some selected few.

My position when it comes to U.F.O alien theories remains.

U.F.O means Unidentified flying Objects and as it name implies "Unidentified" means we have no idea what it is.

If you call it an alien space ship, it is no longer "Unidentified" since you already identified what it is.

Lenticular clouds are said to be the most causes of U.F.O sightings, that we don't know what a flying object is doesn't mean it is alien.

Until we get a clear picture of such claims, maybe the aliens stop landing in back yard of farmers and school children and start landing in airports.

till then there is no need to paint a picture based on such vague shadowy claims.

Immorttal:
you are right bro.A minuscle part of the universe we are.I also believe there exist billions of other realms in which beings exists like spirits,physical realms,ufos.Etc maybe reason why we have failed in discovering life in space,who knws.Wisdom can never be totally apprehended.Am a free thinker.

We should keep an open mind, we may yet discover things that are breath taking.

I do not doubt the possibility of anything, i only doubt a claim when it is unsupported by proof but require blind belief.

So to me anything is possible.

Like i told someone sometime ago, nothing is impossible.

You can come to me and say you can walk through walls, that is fine but then it requires you walk through walls before i believe you.

Because 2000 years ago if you tell anyone there is a tiny box that he can speak into and someone from the other end of the world will hear him almost instantaneously, he would have doubted you.

but today we do have them Cell phones

So i do not say something is impossible i only recognize that we are not yet there but if one claims it then there is need for empirical substantiation or it is a nonsensical claim and bogus.

So for spirit realms, U.F.Os and things, scientifically we require proof for such claims!!!

hahahahahaha could that be the work of evolution?

Humans are now evolving past that primitive level while chimps are evolving into it

BETATRON:
Simple application of physics(central of mass) synonymous to vaulting
Him for just suspend for thing air

Correct!!

3 legs of the chair is on 3 bottles, its enough to derive a center of mass and attain balance, and such trick require great mastery of balance...

Trust Nigerians to say it is juju, supernatural, witchcraft and other daft preposterous nonsense..

tobbie247:
In that case, write pie in mathematics on a piece of paperin a note book without approximating the digits so you don't deceive yourself when next you use it.

A mathematical calculation of a macro value, is not same as a calculation at a miniscule level.

There is no argument here.. the OP's question was

"If there would be a change in weight?"

The answer is yes, he didn't ask whether is was negligible of not, that is a totally different answer all together…

So what ever way the truth remains there was a change in weight no matter how tiny it is..

BiafranNigerian:
says who?

Nobody need say it, you only need to look at everything.. The cosmos..

we are part of the universe

tobbie247:
Yes I know. I'm talking from mere human perception, not physics.

Thanks.

But in this case we should talk Physics as "Physics" is a human way of deducting what is true deeper than our perception.

if we put human perception above physics in such case, human perception becomes deceptive and an enemy of truth

Richirich713:
you do have a inclination to do good. Just like Stalin and Mao had their inclination on what they called "good".

Lets discuss "Good" this is not an argument.

so according to you, what is good?

UyiIredia:
1) That doesn't make it less mysterious, does it ?

Not at all, mysteries are things waiting to be known... So being mysterious is not a strange thing or a gap that needs to be roped with assumptions and superstitions.

But rather a call for study or more study and empirical deductions

3) They do so according to natural laws.

Lol.. Exactly!!!..

Showing nature is unplanned, random and spontaneous.. Nature in totality happens and changes and these changes it has no care whether for good or bad because good and bad are human ideas (our perception of what favours us).

No wonder more than 99% of the universe can kill you instantly.. Nature changes in every direction not minding the result because there is no plan or goal but a random dance of interacting values.

Richirich713:
Not atheism.

Very Correct!!!! 100% correct.. Atheism is not a philosophy or a belief system, you cannot do good or bad in the name of atheism.. No atheism is just a tag of unbelief in deities.

Their morality is driven by their humanity, society, community, choice, compassion, love..

These affirms the wrong idea that morality is roped in religious beliefs or belief in a "God".

Our humanity and society is the guide to human ethical positions.

Yeah cuz Nigeria a poor country, got nothing to do with religious beliefs or atheism. Especially not Christian teachings.

The point is, Religious people claim moral superiority and cannot even see morality outside religion.

This brings about the expectation that "the more religious should be the more moral" since they claim moral originalities and even lay claims to universal creator spelling out these moral values.

but the reverse is the case that is almost certainly looks like the more religious the less moral.

Well Martin Luther King Jr never quoted Darwin to argue against slavery.

One thing you lot need to understand, Morality is neither a buddhist, hindu, Christian or islam idea, morality is a child of human society and belongs to no ism.

it is not dependent on any book, creed or supernatural for foundation because morality itself is founded on human societal interaction..

So next time do not bring the atheists lack moral mumbo jumbo, Every human has every basis to be moral as a member of a human society not defined by their belief or unbelief.

Morality is independent of belief but rather is about actions towards one another..

Hahahahaha I love this thread

BiafranNigerian:
humans are universe experiencing existence in earthly body. the universe

Humans are not the totality of the universe, but just another tiny part of the universe, another child of nature and part of the whole that defines everything (Universe)

McSterling:
Yeah, a smaller organism like an ant would notice that change. Brian Greene once pointed that when we observe a thread, we see a seeming one dimension, whereas an ant can navigate the 3 dimensions of that thread. Just like rats hear ultrasonic sounds.

Precisely!!!

McSterling:
Hehehe...how you dey? Haven't been seeing much of you lately.

Bro i have been busy ooo. Na hustling deh game now !!!

McSterling:
I think so too. The difference is only at the quantum level.

Just like we are too tiny to notice the curvature of the earth surfaces (so we imagine it as flat while standing on it) so too are we too big to notice the changes at a micro level.

If you tap the wall beside you right now slightly, there MUST and IS a slight vibration induced by that slight tap of your finger but you are too big to notice such miniscule change.

But that doesn't mean there wasn't any Change there was and no approximations can erase that in actuality..

McSterling:
I was hoping you'd write an epistle. Come on, write an epistle.

hahahahaha common bro you lot already have done a good job answering the thread, sometimes an epistle is not needed.

a few words most times are more powerful than a thousand!!!

..Humanity is so vulnerable that we leave that which is in front of us to chase after that which we do not have or know but a figment of our imaginations, thoughts and wishes.

the above quote of mine holds true for our perception of death.

Haven't you noticed how the word "Death" gives rise to different philosophies of hopeful realities to many.

-On one hand some speculate we do not really die but transcends and then gets reborn and live again and so it goes in a circle.

-Another suggests we do not get reborn but some thinking formless needless part of us continues somewhere else.

-Plato suggests the body is a prison for the soul.

Where as all these philosophies are profound and hopeful, i also call it greed, selfishness and a product of an unmatched ego wielded only by the human mind.

Humans have that egoistic tendency of deluding themselves to be the most important part of the universe..

That is why in this deluding ego they see themselves as deserving to live again but not every other animal or living thing in this earth that also live as they live and feel as they do.


-Just how important are we in this universe?

More important than the stars? Without the stars we won't be here but without us they were, are and will be.

More important than the plants ? without them we won't be here but without us they were, are and will be.

So how exactly are we more important, why do we prize ourselves the most important part of the cosmos when we are so deplorable and expandable that the cosmos won't even notice our disappearance.

So many stories have littered the course of human philosophy on the eventuality of death.

So many wishful hopeful fantasies has been conceived to give hope and comfort to the human mind when faced with the inevitability of death.

-We shall see again in paradise
-we shall be reborn again
-we shall make merry in Valhalla

amongst thousands of such tales.. I do not know how enticing these stories are but i know the greed of a human mind makes them comforting as nobody would like to imagine the absoluteness of the end of our being.

That to me comes from a short memory cus just a little journey backwards whene we were not here, imagining inexistence won't be far fetched.

We have been dead for an infinite time backwards, now we are here and we will soon be dead how then can we not imagine our the state we were before coming to this?.

I really understand the reasons why all these stories crop up in the human mind, why all these philosophies and emotional clutch to a comforting tale defines a huge part of our belief

It is because of the vulnerability of our being.

Being that almost certainly we are probably the only species amongst all in this planet that know at a very young age that we would die one day.

This knowledge of our inevitable end is somewhat like a burden to us .

I doubt that other species Chimpanzee, dogs , elephants even though alive as we are are fretting over an afterlife or performing rituals to earn a place in paradise or somewhere else outside the cosmos.

No they just live in the moment.

With all these stories filling the gap left by fear, vulnerability of our mind, we yet have no evidence to support these fantasies.

I do not claim to have knowledge of what happens in death but if anybody, person or book claims to know, they are both lying and fraudulent.

Because they do not know.

We are so concerned by what we want to be, by what we wish for that we forget and pay little mind to what we have which is NOW

So isn't it better and more noble we forget all these stories and focus on what we have and where we are which is Now and Here

Here and Now are the most important, certain aspect of it all, make them count and don't waste them chasing after a vague shadow of an uncertain wishful fantasy.

..see the man hair style, Obj na Ramsey Nouah where this man deh

tobbie247:
If I have an empty notebook and then I write in all the pages, does it make it any lighter or heavier?

it does make it heavier but at a very miniscule level that you cannot notice it

redwriter:
Hmmm. İnteresting conversation overall. İ have one question,pls. Where does the human thought come from?

From human neurological composition. . . Simply put (Nervous system) ** Brain**

Geofavor:
hmm. Okay. Lemme stand by and continue learning from you experts,

while I make my deductions.



modified*
@ bolded. What I meant by "raw matter" is non-living matter. Of cause I know everything is matter.

Living matters are also made of non-living matters, the right words here for matters that can give rise to living organism is Organic

It is an organic chemistry with carbon as a bedrock for building the complex chain.

However, I believe that for a living organism to have emerged, there has to have been a pre-existing living thing which brought about its coming to life.

But you forgot that this pre-existing living organism must also require another to bring it into being.

and this must also require another pre-existing living organism and so it goes into a chain of infinite regress.

of which in this infinite loop there will also get to a point where these pre-existing living organisms will have to emerge from non-living matter.

Abiogenesis suggests that life is prolonged by the continual coming to life of inanimate things and not by reproduction of a species by the same species.

Rather it suggests the emergence of life (simplest form of cell) came from non-living but organic elements.

the development of this cell to different species and the attainment of complexity is now dubbed evolution

Some say abiogenesis was how life began, then later on, the conditions( temperature, elements, energy and so one) favoured procreation. it's all still speculations.

Those conditions are from our own judgments as Earth based and Carbon based life forms.

we know Oxygen, water, right temperature etc are necessary for our own forms of life so that's why i said Life as we know it those are not speculations but holds true in terms of most earth life forms.

There are also some organisms that exist and thrive in earth conditions we may consider impossible, like extremely high and low temperature, absence oxygen, some can even live in the vacuum of space comfortably.

Abiogenesis is hypothetical, nobody knows for sure how life began and that is why study is still on going in that area..

We are this close to knowing

I checked that article; I'm not convinced. true, scientists have done works like that one in the article that makes it close to verifying abiogenesis. But it is still yet to be proven.

Lol.. That article was not a meant as a proof of abiogenesis but rather to show you life is a chemistry.

We are close enough to synthesize life in a lab showing we sooner or later can demonstrate how with the right elements, conditions and time Life can emerge from Organic non- living matter contrary to your belief.

Science is the philosophy of discovery while belief is that of uncertainty..

Lalasticlala mynd44 UjSizzle do the needful .. we need more audience bosses!!!

Geofavor:
Lol. See as you dey laugh me. We are still on the same page here, boss.
It seems you and the other guys misunderstood what I meant by "explosion" in that context. I didn't mean "blow up". No. I meant a "rampant increase".

If I'm correct, a singularity exploded (or expanded) over billions of years to form the universe -- says the theory.

That singularity itself was the universe at the tiniest miniscule stage, and it was not an expansion of matter but of Space/time itself.

Subsequently, living organism began to emerge. How? They formed themselves from the already existing matter. This, I am not comfortable with.

The universe is ever evolving, newer values emerge from the interaction of older ones.

there were no stars at the beginning of the universe, but through the interaction of hydrogen (matter) and gravity stars were born and this emergence of stars made it possible for planets to form.

And with the activities going on within the star core heavy elements that are the bedrocks of our being came into existence.

Oxygen
Carbon
Nitrogen
(Hydrogen was before)

and from supernovas these elements scattered through the universe and made it possible for planets like earth to form.

With the right condition, water and time and the availability of these required elements life as we know it can emerge...

It is a natural chemistry.

so you are just another product of the universe through different unplanned interactions.

it was not an emergence of a complex functional macro organisms but rather the simplest form of cell.

microbile life forms..

. Definitely I have a lot to learn. If this is so, shouldn't reproduction be made from raw matter then? I think abiogenesis is still a mere hypothesis.

Hahahahahahaha you still have a lot to learn truly but we all do anyway.

Everything is matter ..
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/scientists-create-tiniest-life-form-yet-not-sure-what-it-is

life is chemistry, we don't yet know how it happened yet but we are too close to knowing..

Geofavor:
It still doesn't make sense to me. That's one scientific theory I refuse to agree on. I haven't really delved into it, though (maybe because I'm not intrigued by the Idea). I don't really like the Idea that living matter came out of a mass of energy and non-living matter.

Science leaves room for doubt because it is not a dogma, so everyone can disagree and provide an argument.

Science does not aim at establishing a dogma that should be believed blindly but it aims at getting to know through consistent study and empirical substantiation to arrive at a truthful approximation without at any point claiming absolute truth has being reached.

But leaves more room for doubt, questions and modification in respect to more study to improve the quality of truth.

We still have many questions to answer but really you have a problem with non-living matter turning to living matter forgetting that if you cut off a small part of you it becomes a non-living matter too!!!

Even religiously non-living matter (dust as in Christianity, Clay in Islam, rocks for viorachocha) still turned into living matter as God created man..

remember that

Geofavor:
mhen, you need to come live in my area where there are about ten churches in the same street. The bolded is chorused morning, day and night.

Those are the example were "belief" becomes detrimental to societal well being since it poses as an enemy of empirical deduction and study.

People surely will discard empirical study to uphold personal beliefs and myths, the coming generations will shudder at that when they look back at this present society where scientific findings are chastised in order to clutch on to personal beliefs.

the bigbang doesn't seem legit, though. Living organisms couldn't have possibly emerged from an explosion.

Hahahaha the Big Bang theory first of all is not an explanation of the emergence of living organisms.

- it is not an explosion but a rapid expansion of matter from a point of infinite density and matter.

- Scientific thesis for emergence of organisms is called Abiogenesis that states with the right condition e.g Right sunlight, water, rock, right conditions and presence of the right elements e.g Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen life can emerge from such complex organic situation.

You may want to correct the above though... thanks boss

Yorubas care too much about these TITLES and which is superior to other nonsense and stuff..

All that superiority shows are childish

stonemasonn:
deep down no body really cares about the current chaotic state of things in the country, a typical Nigerian prays for fast and easy wealth so that he can own his house, a big generator and an American passport, with a large bank account we cares about phcn naira fall and fuel scarcity.

This is true!!!

And also for their enemies to die by fire

Cc. UjSizzle lalasticlala mynd44

LoJ:
Nice one. Bring it on sir.

The story of the apple of newton is very interesting. It is awesome to see how much progress can be made from a simple observation and some curiosity. At the end of the day, that's what Science is all about: being curious to know how things work... And refuse to fill the gap of what we don't know yet with superstition myth and religious beliefs.

Waiting for the next installment.

Cc. Teempakguy.

Ironically Newton did just that when he got to the peak of his knowledge just as Ptolemy did.

Ptolemy a brilliant Natural Philosopher (scientist) of Hellenistic era when faced with the motions of celestial objects avowed

" I know that i am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace, at my pleasure, the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch Earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."

Ptolemy filled the gap left by the mysteries of planetary motions with superstition and his religious belief (Hellenistic) and invoked GOD (zeus) to explain the mechanisms of planetary motions.

Our dear Isaac Newton also after watching the sky, got to the limit of his knowledge. The stability of the solar orbits. The known 6 planets and 9 moons of that time, he could see precision and he couldn't go further so he invoked superstition and his religion (Christianity)

" This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.

And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems:

and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other, he hath placed those systems at immense distances from one another.”

You see just like Ptolemy filled the gap of his ignorance with his own Hellenistic beliefs, Newton figured out how they worked unlike Ptolemy.

But then as Newton goes he couldn't figure out their stability, he couldn't conceived the natural mechanics behind it so just like Ptolemy, Newton employed his beliefs.

and then A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on.

Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge.

In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict.

To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces.

when Laplace gave a copy of Mécanique Céleste to his physics-literate friend Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon asked him what role God played in the
construction and regulation of the heavens.

"Sire," Laplace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

You see? both Newton and Ptolemy made that blunder by invoking belief where they lack knowledge.

But Laplace figured it out and then the "God" Newton and Ptolemy used to explain both celestial motion and stability became irrelevant and bogus and unneeded and was thrown out of the equation.

I always tell people this, do not bring your beliefs into scientific deductions. If you are only going to hide your beliefs behind the curtain of scientific ignorance like what people are doing now.

Nobody is now saying God(s) moulded the earth cus that has been answered.

the mantra is now "what came before the big bang or what caused it? if you don't know then God(s) did"

They see any curtain of scientific ignorance a good place to hide the vulnerability their beliefs, if you are going to do that then you will find that with more scientific breakthroughs and deductions these "beliefs" will keep receding and wane.