Joseph1013's Posts
Nairaland Forum › Joseph1013's Profile › Joseph1013's Posts
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 (of 184 pages)
OdenigboAroli:This is becoming childish. Let it go! |
juicydiceyjoe:Watching porn, like playing chess or going to PSquare's concerts, is morally neutral. It is neither bad nor good. Now, if you treat porn like sex education and you start to expect sex from the plumber or the person who is your nurse, that might be bad. But watching porn, of and by itself, is neutral. |
stephenmorris: Got it. You will get a mail from me today. |
stephenmorris: What's your email? |
[b]SIX WORDS WE ARE AFRAID TO SPEAK I haven't counted but I'm pretty sure I have asked far more than 1,000 people why they believe in God. And, without a single exception, I have always seen the same result. The result is that people give me no reason or they give me reasons that rely on fallacious logic or are epistemologically unreliable. I have also spoken to dozens of atheists who have asked believers the same question and they consistently report the same result that I find. Without exception. Thousands of books have been written about gods but, to my knowledge, none has managed to offer even a single evidentially and logically sound reason to believe any particular god exists. I am a cautious man and I hate to jump to conclusions based on inductive logic but there must come a point where we draw a line and recognise we have conducted enough trials. Just as a man dropping a stone a tens of thousand of times must eventually conclude that dropped stones fall to the ground, surely it is now time to draw the conclusion that humans have no good reasons to believe their gods are real. We learn of gods when stories are passed from person to person by word of mouth or by the written word. But did anyone, from the first person to talk about a god to the last to hear of it, EVER have evidentially and logically sound reasons for his belief? It's vanishingly unlikely. Because, if there ever were good reasons, why have the good reasons been lost and only the bad reasons retained? We should expect the opposite. We should expect the billions of human minds these ideas have passed through to act as an effective filter to eliminate bad reasons and retain the good ones. The only reasonable conclusion is that there never were any sound reasons to believe in gods; which is another way of saying: ALL known gods are human inventions. This may be a conclusion we are afraid to voice but it is not as radical as you may think. Even the most dedicated god-believer knows that thousands of gods have been invented by humans--he just hopes that his own god is the single exception. But the compelling weight of evidence is that there are no exceptions. Gods are our babies, we conceive them, we birth, nurture and protect them. But still they grow old, and eventually they die. Let them go.[/b] |
[b]Let me try to help you. ''Is premarital sex right or wrong?'' I'd say there exists no such thing as right or wrong. What seems right to you might not be right for somebody else and vice versa. Moreover, premarital sex is a subject on which people share a wide variety of opinions, even among Christians. I saw on the FP sometimes back about a Christian Author writing that premarital sex is not a big deal. So we really can't label it right as wrong. All one can do is try and know what (s)he feels is right for its own self. To wait for sex till marriage is entirely one's personal choice. There's nothing wrong with it. Also, it's fair enough to wish for a virgin spouse if you yourself are a virgin as at the end of the day, one seeks to spend their life with someone who share their views and ideology on issues as crucial as premarital sex. My personal opinion: I guess you've garnered your 'values' regarding sex from the kind of (christian) environment you're being brought up in. You hail from a very religious background where sex is considered as a taboo and premarital sex a crime. I might be wrong there as I've seen people who despite being raised in those typical orthodox families refuse to accept slowpoke conventions of the society on subjects such as premarital sex and are willing to open up to a more mature mindset. Sometimes you do wish to have sex which is quite natural but you choose to wait instead as you've a notion that sex before marriage is something immoral and impure. Some people want to 'preserve' their virginity for their husband/wife? What is it? Some kind of treasure? They want their wife/husband to be virgin as well. Wow! Quite a status symbol virginity is, isn't it? Let's suppose your first marriage doesn't work out and you have to opt in for remarriage. What then? You won't be having any virginity 'preserved' for your to be wife/husband now. Would it be okay now if the lady/man you're gonna remarry isn't a virgin or you would still consider marrying a virgin girl only? Now you see how lame and invalid that ideology of ''preserving one's virginity for their marriage'' is? Equating virginity to morality and self worth doesn't make sense to me. The same argument holds for Pornography and masturbation.[/b] |
TheSuperNerd:What you provided is someone's opinion on nairaland. That's not a reliable source. Where did Wikipedia give him 14 goals? See, if there is no reliable source, there is no point insisting on what you cannot back up. Yes, the US league was back water in the 70s. Famous players went there to completely retire. Pele played there when he was way past his prime. He even came out of retirement at that time at the age of 35. See what wiki said After the 1974 season (his 19th with Santos), |
TheSuperNerd:Any claim that cannot be backed cannot be admitted. We can only have a discussion on what we can prove. That Basco made a similar point does not mean it's admissible. We can take those claims serious only when we see evidence. NCAA was a backwater league in those days. You can't see a player scoring goals for fun in the Indian league and say he's better than Griezman. |
TheSuperNerd:You don't know that. That's not how football works. You are judged based on what you achieved not on what you would have achieved. If Yekini had played only 32 games for Setubal scoring 34 goals and retired, someone like you would have said that if he had not retired, he would have scored more than 120 goals in 114 appearances based on his 1.06 goals per game (34/32). You see the fallacy in that? I also asked where y'all are bringing these stats from, no one has answered. Is there any authentic source for these information? Someone said 14 goals, another said 15...tomorrow, another person would say 24. Where is the authorative source for Usiyan's goals? We have documented sources about Yekini's goals. |
profmathsland:Did you read what you wrote? How is 0.54 greater than 0.64? What you gave shows that Yekini is a more prolific striker. Also, please provide source of your stat. Where did you get 14 goals in 24 matches from? People also forget that it's not just about goals. All goals are not created equal. Aguero's goal against QPR is more important than Kelechi's goal against Gladbach. Yekini scored very important goals. In AFCON 1994, his goals were so important that he was named the best player of the tournament. His goals qualified us for Nigeria's first ever World Cup. |
[b]We seem to be confusing things in this rank of who is more of a legend than the other. Rashidi is more of a legend than Kanu, though Kanu is more known and much loved. But in terms of football attributes, and performance on the pitch, Yekini wins. Perhaps it's because some here did not watch him play. Here am I just laughing at some comments. Yekini I think had the highest goals for any African national team (bar Hossam Assam) until Drogba came into the frame. He was our most prolific striker who was very intelligent in front of goal and out of the box. He had the muscle, pace, positioning, speed, dribbling [at pace], shot accuracy and aerial power. The worst thing is that looking at him, you will never refer these attributes to him. Extremely intelligent player that only Okocha (arguable?) can claim to be Nigeria's best player before him. No other Nigerian striker has matched up to that since. I repeat no Nigerian striker has matched him, past or present, considering we've had some really good strikers in the Eagles. His legendary goal scoring lives on. He was such a prolific goal scorer that when you hear he is on the team sheet, you will be like "at least I know we will score, let the opposition just not score more ". Even in his club, he was a legend. I think he scored 90 goals in 114 appearance. That's a crazy stat. Before the extraterrestrial geniuses of Messi and Ronaldo came on the scene, that's about the best you were bound to see anywhere in Europe. It was crazy. Consider that this was an era when it was taken for granted when black players were called monkeys. Someone like him played through pains and all those social abuses. It takes guts and mental mastery to pull something like that off in such a racist culture. Setubal was a small club with average players but Yekini became top scorer in the whole league in his very first season in the top Portuguese league. Please realize that it was his 34 goals in 32 games that brought the club from second division to Primera league the season before that. He practically took the club on the shoulders and led from the front. CAF instantly took notice of his performance for club and country and made him the African Footballer of the Year. He was the very first Nigerian to win that award. What a pace-setter! This might look like a bash, but Kanu did not measure to this standard. While Yekini was a sure starting 11 in all the teams he played for, Kanu was constantly on the bench in both club and country. The same Kanu that played 87 times for Nigeria, and scored less than Okocha that played as a midfielder? The same Kanu who spent 2/3 of his career on the bench in the Super Eagles, Ajax, Inter, Arsenal, Portsmouth and West Brom. Please, let's give respect to whom it's due. Peace out! [/b] |
TheGoodJoe:That site is a joke. I went to look at Arsenal and I saw them rank Petr Cech and Alexis over Ian Wright. That says it all. |
clefstone:You can't say the reason she says 'nonsense', according to you, is because she is a woman. TheSuperNerd and thegoodjoe made the exact same point, why didn't you attack them with the exact statement you made to her? I can assure you that there are so many males who have said rubbish on this thread. One of them said Mikel is a failure with intense emotions. What do you say to that? |
goldfish80:Not saying I agree with goodjoe, but Messi, and many others, are proof that infant sensations do not always peak in their teenage or early twenties. |
goldfish80:Was Messi an infant sensation? |
clefstone:C'mon, don't be a sexist. What does being a female has to do with this issue? Do we say TheSuperNerd who is also in the same line of thought with her is also a female? Fact is that she understands and analyses football more than a lot of males. So what's the fuss? Let's treat each comment on its own merit, and not go off the tangent by turning to ad hominem statements. |
Icon4s:Happy birthday, bro. I can see you have intentionally avoided the debate about your club. ![]() Enjoy your day! |
THERE IS NO TEST Christians say life on Earth is just a test to see who is fit for heaven. The death of a child is just a test; an earthquake is a test. Cancer, birth defects, tsunamis, volcanoes, tornadoes, malaria and ebola are all tests. God has an entire arsenal of tests for us. What Christians don't tell us is why an infinitely-loving, omniscient God needs to put humans through untold suffering to find answers he knew anyway. This is self delusion of the highest order. There is a much simpler explanation that requires no apologetics, no mental gymnastics and no suspension of disbelief. We are small, fragile beings on an unstable and indifferent rock surrounded by a chaotic atmosphere hurtling through a hostile universe. We evolved together with a host of other life forms, many of which can harm us. That's why bad things happen. Simple. |
ValentineMary:Yeah |
ValentineMary:What makes you ask that? |
[b]MORE ON EVOLUTION Steve Chika Abia For the records, Darwin's theory of evolution may not be the final truth. It surely doesn't claim to be the ultimate truth given that so many questions are still unanswered. But it is an attempt to give an account, with evidence and factual records, of how life originated in our part of the cosmos. Darwin's theory of evolution says that each new organism is subtly different from its parents, and these differences can sometimes help the offspring or impede it. As organisms compete for food and mates, those with the advantageous traits produce more offspring, while those with unhelpful traits may not produce any. So within a given population, advantageous traits become common and unhelpful ones disappear. Given enough time, these changes mount up and lead to the appearance of new species and new types of organism, one small change at a time. "Why have we not seen an evolutionary change in humans in our time?", asked someone who lacks basic knowledge of biology. The answer is simply that evolution takes a long time to make big changes. To see evidence of that, you have to look at older records. You have to look at fossils. BTW, I love the level of scepticism folks display whenever Evolution is discussed. They don't want to swallow it. So they put on their armour of 'logic'. They beam their searchlight on every 'loophole' they can possibly find. Why should we believe "a mere theory"? It's not even a scientific law! If only you can apply a fraction of that scepticism to the creation myths you peddle as facts, your worldview would change for the better. It boggles the mind that your 'sophisticated' brain could find 'loopholes' in a scientific theory, yet it couldn't differentiate mythical stories from factual records. [/b] |
[b]I KNOW WHY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION When I say, "People who believe Adam and Eve existed are either (i) delusional, (ii) ignorant, or (iii) intellectually deficient," I'm making a statement of fact. It is not an ad hominem insult. Evolution is fact, like gravity is fact. We have seen it happen before our eyes. DNA sequencing technology has provided incontrovertible proof of it. And evolution precludes the existence of a "first" man or woman. So Adam and Eve—as a matter of *fact*—are mythological characters we made up, like Papa Bear and Mama Bear. This evidence is out there, available and accessible to anyone living in 2016. There are only three reasons why anyone today would still genuinely believe in the existence of Adam and Eve: (i) the person has been brainwashed, indoctrinated, or chosen him/herself to adopt a demonstrably false belief, which, by definition, is a delusion; (ii) the person has normal intelligence but is simply not aware of how it is that evolution, a factual phenomenon, makes it impossible for there to be an Adam and an Eve—that is, the person is ignorant; (iii) the person doesn't have the intellectual capacity to process ideas like evolution or gravity despite being presented with all the evidence for them; that is, the person is stupid (the actual definition of the word), and/or intellectually deficient. None of this means that people who genuinely believe in the myth of Adam and Eve are bad people, or don't have other skills or attributes that the rest of us can admire or appreciate. It simply means that in this specific area, they are delusional, ignorant, or intellectually lacking. There's nothing wrong with saying that.[/b] |
thegoodjoe, have you seen this? It's a beautiful documentary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAfpRD2LeZ4 |
Apparently, Odion Ighalo was excused from Nigeria’s World Cup qualifier in Zambia to attend his father’s funeral. |
iPrevail:I love this and other comments I see on this post. Critical thinking! People don't insinuate that it was a spirit that snapped the picture. People look for logical explanations for the surprising image. If only people would think along this line when it has to do with religion rather than attribute all uncertainty to God and the Supernatural. |
Does anyone have a video of Nwobodo's goal for Rangers? |
icon4s, the Joel Asorock guy of forgiveness makes sense. Joel Asoro |
WRONG EDUCATION I came across a primary school owned by a church with the moto boldly written on the gate: "Discipline and Fear of God", and I had to observe a minute silence for the poor kids being fed with "knowledge" diluted with religious superstitions. Kids go there to acquire knowledge and all they teach them (so the motto says) is the "fear of God"!. In colonial times, education came through the missionaries. But the aim of African education then was to produce literate adults just to service the church and the colonial government. Nothing more. Today, not much has changed. Academics and religion still are intertwined. Even in higher institutions, religion takes up the major space in campus life. How do you reconcile the contradiction between an institution driven by knowledge and one driven by blind faith? How do you expect religious groups to teach critical thinking skills to their students? That would be suicidal! |
forgiveness:LOL. Your own is to invite anybody to any game. Guy, we can only invite 23 players per time. And it's not appropriate to invite a lot of green horns for crucial qualifying games. That said, who are they and why should they be invited? |
forgiveness:Na wa to you o. So you can't see that it's his club that is the enemy of progress? Every time Musa comes to our National team, U17, U20, U23, Super Eagles, he performs. Yet the club refuses to play him when he gets there. How can he be the fourth RB in their team. I'm sure their first team RB will not make our team. They would not play him, yet they refused him the opportunity to play in the Olympics. They would not play him, yet they won't release for other clubs to come. There is no way Musa did not justify his callup with the performance in our last game. You have to be blind not to see that. Rohr was lavishing praises on the lad and commending his efforts. So why will he not call him up? He will soon leave that club. Just watch. Oga, be careful! |
Why do most (wo)men always pray for a God fearing partner? Are they saying those who ain't God fearing can't make good partners? |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 (of 184 pages)
in his twilight years.... 

?