₦airaland Forum

Raymondenyi:
stop being silly my brother; I have seen with my two eyes; where a man was shot at and he was still bouncing ; and running around; but when he released his own to the opposing party; my brother.... we just finished d burial of his opposition some few weeks ago...

Hahahahahahaha really, oh what a marvelous tale you just told us. . . and you were standing there watching two people have a gun fight. . .sometimes you should first weight the magnitude of your lie before telling it

sonmvayina:
who tell you say baba gee no get wife..e get oh.lol...

Daninya11:
An eyewitness who shared this picture on his Facebook page said the metaphysical being was seen riding in the clouds this morning..

It is said to have occurred at Gowon estate, Alimoso in Lagos state..

This bring to mind the eschatological events recorded by Apostle John in the book of Revelation..

Obinovictor:
Are you saying that you know that guy up there?

onetrack:
Photoshop. I've seen this picture before elsewhere on the interwebs.

keenn:
I was of the opinion that none of this charm protective effects are plausible

But when credit is given to it(charm) by a man who engages in constant warfare with heavy artillery(like I said, he is on a protective detail of a top military personal) someone might begin to have a rethink of aforementioned notion/principle/school of thought/believe system. Except if his statements are untrue wish I doubt.

dorox:
Charms only appears to work against low velocity muzzle-loading fire arms aka oka made pistles. These guns have very limited range and accuracy which means that targets are more than likely to be missed especially if it is moving. Even when the target is hit the lethality of the bullet deteriorates significantly with incremental travel.
The simple truth is that most good for nothing idiòts wear charms, so when some other untrained idiòt shoots at them and misses or the bullet hits them and bounces off without penetrating their skin they just attribute their lucky escape to the useless charm they are wearing.
I am yet to hear of any testimony of a charm that is effective against an amor piercing round shot from close range by a marks man.

plaetton:
It Is great to have a dose healthy skepicism.
However, just like every field of study, we look for pieces and bodies of evidence, then patiently follow them to whenever they may lead.

The stories of alien visitations and interactions with ancient peoples all over the world is the basis of every religion in the world.

From reading translations ancient texts from different cultures, I am convinced that this is the story they were all trying to tell.

No ancient book tells that story better than the good ol bible.

Its all there in black and white.

NumberOne2:
Hmmm, thats a blank channel? Its been a while I saw that. My TV shows a blue screen and I watch stuff on my AV channel, its not blank.

Anyway, to recap:
Atheism = Off
Theism = On (Irreligious Theist = AV, Religious Theist = Displaying channels, Religious Atheist (like buddhist et al) = Blank)

This is interesting that you put the religious Atheists like (Buddhist) under the "blank Theism" just ensure that Atheism is ONE. Kinda biased toward Atheism don't you think?

Concerning the rabbit analogy:
I totally agree. We cannot say it does or does not exist till we have exhausted all possibilities. However, we must not ridicle those who say it exists as from your ascertion, you dont know any better either.

Like I have maintained from the start, when next someone tells you about the golden rabbit (figuratively), just walk away or say thanks. Just like I would do if told about Santa Claus or Tooth Fairy. To begin to ridicle this perceived impossibility (when you are not 100% sure yourself) is a flawed argument in itself.

For the Apple example as the bible (God's word), like the saying The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Cheers

Zoharariel:
I know u're an atheist but I tell you - everything in that 1st link, written by Dr. Malachi York - who was framed and thrown into prison by the American Government is nothing but the truth.

NumberOne2:
Correction: I am NOT trying to prove God cos I have said I cant; same as the ability to proove that God does NOT exist.

Bros, AV is a blank channel. I thought the Buddhist were blank. How many blanks are on this TV?

NumberOne2:
What is this? I didn't say God is unprovable!!! I said:
[size=16pt]GOD IS UNPROVABLE BY MAN EXCEPT BY GOD HIMSELF!! Why cut the sentence half way

]THE APPLE FRUIT IS THE BIBLEwhich we can ALL SEE (it is not an illusion). It is VERY VISIBLE. I have said this before!
I say you have concluded, hence you have started misquoting me.

Please, when a TV is on, it shows something which is usually a channel.
What is default mode? Menu pop-ups? Are those channels?
So your analogy will be false without digital TV. Even at that, a well configure digital TV will show a channel when ON unless it is new? (like a new born baby). Flawed analogy.

I can rightly say you are just using a blank t.v. . . A television has a default home screen, in many old televisions its called the AV screen..You don't even know t.v's have default home screens...
#Pheeeeeeeew. . .

scarred9jan:
why only white girls. i wanted to dash you my cousin... she needs to be "dereligionize"

I can manage her too ...lol

NumberOne2:
Don't assume.
I NEVER talked of apple tree (kindly check back). I only mentioned the sweetness of the apple FRUIT and my speech to try it for yourself.
I even talked of eating the apple seeds. I never said apple tree, it was you. You have gone ahead of me to conclude.

I said the sweetness of the apple is unprovable except by tasting the apple yourself!!!

God is not provable by man except by God Himself (I can only tell you. You try and see). If you don't get this my point we will keep going in circles. Dont misquote me.

As for the TV:
A better analogy will be coloured display for theist channels and monochrome display for atheist channels.
This will cover the variations in both. 20 monochrome channels and 50 coloured channels. There are irreligious theist which the ON channels dont cater for.

menesheh:
the guy is getting all his inspiration from a video clip on this site : www.evolutionvsgod.com/


just sacrifice my 38 mins for nothing, what watching crap

NumberOne2:
Nothing abstract at least we can all see the bible (the word). There is a way to eat the apple just like a way to read the bible.
If you bite the apple from the bottom or top, you may eat the seeds which are not sweet. Then you may falsely conclude that the apple is bitter!
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. - Romans 10:17

menesheh:
is that how you engage your argument? hit and run?
if you cant argue, why engage it at-all?.

Lol bros easy o ... there is nothing wrong in forgoing an argument tho. . when you make your point you can be on your way to avoid long unnecessary arguments. . . i don't necessarily call it hit and run cus its not..

NumberOne2:
If the OFF postion being just a single position is Atheist, how can you account for the variations in Atheist ideals?
You can account for that in the theist ON postiton via channels.

NumberOne2:
No running here. God is not unprovable. He is provable only by Himself (when you try him and He encourages you to do so).
If God wasn't working in my life, why would I be a Christian? For decoration?

Example:
I have tasted apples. They are sweet. (the apples have prooved to be sweet to me).
You have never tasted apples. How can I convince you they are sweet. I tell you about apples.
The ultimate way to prove it is truely sweet is to eat of it (beleive). All I can do is tell you and let the apple do its job when you taste it.
No amount of explanation can compensate for the actual tasting of the apples. The apples will convince you, I can only tell you.

NumberOne2:
Hope this helps:
And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. - Matthew 10:14

Now back to the TV analogy. What is the TV? So I can get a clearer picture.

NumberOne2:
Maybe I am not getting you. Why is Atheism not a blank channel, why off?
Refering to BOLDED. So what is the TV?

NumberOne2:
Our duty is to telll you about God, if you beleive or not is not up to me, it is up to God. This is what I mean. Dont take me out of context. Thanks

NumberOne2:
You are the one saying atheism is OFFING the TV not me.
The analogy is wrong and I gave 2 scenerios.
If your analogy is true then, ON on the TV will be a theist state irrespective of the channel being watched (now this cannot be true).
How about blank channels? I can think of 1000 ways in which this analogy is flawed.

You are just the one swimming in your own misrepresentation and understanding of a simple analogy so as to drag Atheism down your mess.…

Again i repeat, Atheism and theism are POSITIONS and not religions.
In fact the bolded part of your post helps buttress my point.

The T.V position of ON and OFF depicts the position of theism and atheism.
The channels in t.v depicts different religions in theism.
Atheism simple means OFF. . .
Unless of course as you are showing us you dont know the definition of a religion.

NumberOne2:
There are those who do. Those are the various "sects" in the Atheist religion.

Another blunder, maybe this is as a result of willful dishonesty. .
Atheism is just a word that labels disbelief in deities.
Theism used to label belief in deities. . . . Both of them are not religions but positions over belief and unbelief in deities.

Talk about religions we all know what religion is following the same doctrine and mode of practise...and we know the examples.

Tagging people's ideologies to be modes of religions is as stupendous as it is ridiculous. I am in love with white girls only, does this put me in a different atheist sect?

Hahahahahahaha Atheism just means i don't believe a deity exists. . and atheists do not share ideologies.
And ideologies are not synonymous to religion

NumberOne2:
Atleast we agree on this. Science tries to give an explanations (which is good). 70% of the Earth is covered by water, science assume it came from commets and meteors but its just a theory till anything else comes along. They don't know but give possible suggestions.

I thought you said you are scientifically inclined Yet you do not know the difference between a hypothesis and a theory... Lol..
Any postulations unsupported by evidence or observations remains a hypothesis and not a theory, you need to get your facts straight about the comet hypothesis... I recommend you check well before spelling out posts here

NumberOne2:
Your analogy is wrong cos if OFF on TV is compared to atheism, then we
will not have various "OFF's" like offs that believe in Santa Claus or
Evolution and those that don't. It would have been a UNIFIED off. Off can
be standy mode or power from the socket off.
However, if we see various TV channels as different states of the TV, the off
is also a state. A state of blankness. So either way, that analogy is flawed

I am pretty sure you are mistaking having a belief and having a religion

Someone may believe in a god and not have a religion, it simply is belief.
Deists, pantheist all believe in a god but they have no religion.

So you see? throwing in the belief in sancta claus phrase is yet another childish attempt on logic...

That they are atheist that have a certain belief in some superstitious notions doesn't make them religious. . they are Christians who do not buy into superstitions it doesn't make them irreligious. . so know the difference between being religious and having a belief.

When its comes to religiosity and belief in a deity, atheism is synonymous to OFFing the t.v which is not a t.v channel whether it is removed from the power socket or not... Now re-read your post