₦airaland Forum

I sincerely doubt that “lack of plaster” is what led to the child’s death. A full audit should be done instead of just sensational headlines.

OP sounds heavily AI adjusted, only because I use chatgpt a lot. Not criticizing, just observing

musicwriter:
Please spare yourself of that old "communist" card because today China is now more capitalist than the West.

Do you know what communism is?

Today, criticize the chinese communist party and see if you have basic freedoms to live your life and practice religion and truly own anything

musicwriter:
You basically don't understand why we're in the condition we're today on the African continent. The people that incapacitated you are Europeans, not the Chinese.

And how do we move from here? You think it’s by embracing chinese communism?

jmoore:
This fugitive David dude and his deluded conspiracy theory.

What does he know about consumption?
He has never handled a proforma invoice in his life.
Majority of our imports are coming from China. Is China in Europe'

Exactly!
I honestly wonder how people end up having conspiracy theories as their mainline world view.

VOsimhen144:
The day politicians and private owners begin to see Nigeria as their TRUE home, that's the day Nigeria will be a better place.

Black skin is a curse. I regret the day I was born as a black man, I wish I was a white guy. Even the white Africans among us (morroco, Egypt etc) are doing far better then we the real Africans. Why? Why?

In 2026 we are still crying to the government for Ordinary stable electricity, bad roads everywhere, etc..

Is not as if there is no money to get these amenities done. the money is just looted and embezzled everyday for personal use.

Black skin is cursed with greed and selfishness.

You may be cursed and be pronouncing curses on your head, but I’m quite blessed.

They should be drafted not recruited. For a country like the USA with its strong history and foundations, and also it’s enemies, military service should be compulsory

I made a mistake during the poll at the beginning

Its a grave mistake by the doctors, and they should be punished, but maybe also given a chance for rehabilitation to contribute to healthcare in the future?

It is a dicey issue though and I cannot give a particular answer

WriterNig:
👍🏻 Like for Russia-Putin, share for USA/Nazi/NATO 卍

Are you okay? Why did you add ‘nazi’ to the US one? So I cannot vote for the US without indirectly acknowledging they’re Nazi?
You for add communist dictator to russia na, at least that one is true

ddippset:
MoBy brother no one is ideally humble...

Humility does not mean 10 times out of 10 you're humble,
It actually means 7 or 8 times out of 10, you're humble.

I am a Christian and even My Lord Jesus Christ lost him temper in the temple..

So yes Kante is humble and there are loads of testimonies to support that.

Your love or worship of Ronaldo should not make you deny that all of a sudden.

I don’t love or worship Ronaldo or any other person.
I’m simply pointing out the irony of using an example of pride as a statement of humility.

That’s all.
Jesus never “lost his temper”
Jesus never sinned. Unless you don’t believe He’s actually Lord.
I’m not claiming perfection, I’m just trying to point out something people do commonly that is wrong so people will benefit. People commonly wrongly label actions of self centeredness or pride as “humility”
Peace bro
Have I become your enemy because I tel you the truth?

ddippset:
You don't get it,, this message requires logic, critical thinking and a little more than your common sense.

When an athlete who is big, tall and good-looking treats a less physically endowed athlete that way,,
There is a feeling of discrimination and racism..

It's not as simple as you think.

Its very simple, people will always be racist and treat others badly, you cannot control how others treat you but you can control your response.
I’m not justifying Ronaldo, I’m only faulting the description of Kante as humble, true humility is not easily offended and won’t hold grudges. Simple

Coincidentally if he was truly humble he won’t be so seriously offended by Cristy’s actions, so this is actually pride in action, not humility

No I did not cohabit in any way

@mod
Does this merit more publicity on the front page?

Over the past 10 years, Northern Nigeria has quickly risen to the top of the list as the most dangerous place to be a Christian. More Christians are killed here than anywhere else in the world.
The data show us that it’s not by slim margins. According to International Christian Concern, in 2022, 90% of all Christians killed in the world were killed in Nigeria. Last year, that number was around 70%.

According to the most recent statistics, Boko Haram alone is responsible for the deaths of 38,000 people between 2011 and 2023. Their growth has been so staggering that it has essentially overwhelmed the Nigerian government’s attempts to stop it. In 2023, I witnessed Nigerian soldiers walk off the job when ordered to fight Boko Haram militants. They told me that fighting Boko Haram was a suicide mission. These terrorist groups keep the people of northern Nigeria in a constant state of fear. They yield this fear skillfully to maintain control. While I truly believe Nigerian President Bola Tinubu wants to see change in the region, his government is outnumbered and outgunned.



Sources:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-silent-slaughter-inside-nigerias-christian-persecution-crisis

https://www.persecution.org/2023/09/11/90-percent-of-the-5500-christians-killed-in-2022-were-nigerian/

Lucifyre:
"God is timeless and hence doesn't have a beginning."

How does the above mean God proofed into existence?

@LordReed, @Deepsight

Subjective morality sounds tolerant and open-minded, but in real life, it’s unlivable and logically incoherent.
We all recognize certain things as truly good or truly evil.
That means there must be an objective standard — something outside of us — and that points us to objective morality, and ultimately to a moral lawgiver.

Subjective morality doesn’t make sense in reality because it collapses under its own logic when applied to real-world situations:

1. Subjective morality makes moral claims meaningless

If morality is just a matter of personal taste (like “I like chocolate”), then saying “torturing babies is wrong” is no different from saying “I don’t like pineapple on pizza.”
There’s no truth value — just preference.

But in the real world, when we say something like:

“Slavery is wrong.”
“Rape is evil.”
“Genocide is unjust.”

We don’t mean it’s just our opinion. We mean it’s actually wrong — no matter what anyone thinks.


2. You can’t condemn genuine evil

If morality is subjective, then Nazi ideology, terrorism, and child abuse are not objectively wrong — just “different values.”
But we know they are wrong, regardless of cultural or personal views.
Subjective morality makes it impossible to rationally condemn evil practices — even if your gut knows they’re wrong.
Don't be dishonest. You literally have to argue on the side of Nazi's and mass murderers and serial killers if you want to hold on to subjectivity


3. It destroys justice

If everyone makes their own moral rules, then there’s no real basis for law or punishment.
Why shouldn’t someone steal or murder if it “feels right to them”?
In a subjective framework, you can’t say, “You’re wrong to do that,” only “I personally don’t like it.”
That leads to moral anarchy.

Finally, like earlier, and for me the most glaring; It’s self-refuting

If someone says, “All morality is subjective — there are no objective moral truths,” I ask:

“Is that statement objectively true?”

If yes → they’ve contradicted themselves.
If no → then you can ignore them, because it’s just their opinion.


Unfortunately, a non theistic worldview, will NOT hold up in any side of the divide;
Whether it tries to hold onto objective morality without a moral lawgiver (which is illogical) or subjective morality (which doesn’t make sense in reality), a non-theistic worldview ultimately fails to provide a coherent explanation for the existence of moral truths.

In other words, non-theistic worldviews that try to explain morality in any form without a divine source are logically flawed and incorrect.

Without a moral lawgiver, non-theistic worldviews struggle to ground moral truths in a way that aligns with how we experience right and wrong in the real world. Therefore, in the context of morality, such worldviews fail to provide a practical, logically consistent foundation for living a realistic moral life.

budaatum:
God. Unless you want to claim God is not alive.

It does contradict the nothing comes from nothing mantra, mind.

God is not an example nah. Chai. Nawa oh.

Eternal and infinite life is an attribute of God.

Lucifyre:
Quite obvious you're the one talking nonsense. Only you opened your mouth to say life can't come from non life then turned around to claim your god just poofed into existence out of thin air like a magic trick, then also poofed life from non life out of thin air, again like a magic trick. If that's not the poster boy for baseless and contradictory, i don't know what is. Got any evidence for your assertions?! Bjg fat no, ergo baseless.

No one said God poofed into existence.
How can you create your own adversary and be arguing against it?

LordReed:
My saying murder is a legal term should have already keyed you to my position. First off, there is no objective right or wrong.

Good. There are many ways to make this collapse. But I'll use the easiest.

You just said "there is no objective right and wrong"

This statement you just made, is borrowing from an objective stance. You said there’s no such thing as objective right and wrong — but that statement actually assumes there is an objective truth.

If you’re saying it’s objectively true that no objective morals exist, you’re contradicting yourself.

You can’t deny objective morality without accidentally affirming it.

LordReed:
Animals don't murder, they kill. Murder is a legal term indicating illegal killing. This is not something that applies to animals. Most murders are not done for food or survival, that is not normal. It is normal for a carnivore to kill it's prey to feast on. It is normal for an animal to kill in self defence. It is not normal for an animal to just kill for no reason.

is murder objectively wrong?

Is deliberately and selfishly taking innocent life objectively wrong irrespective of human opinion or bias or majority?

Your answer will let us know how to make you collapse on your position

LordReed:
Nope. Sin is religious nonsense layered on top of what is natural and normal in other to make the religious concepts have more impetus. For instance, you need sin to make the Adam and Eve story seem compelling likewise the purported human sacrifice performed by Jesus for salvation. None of those work when you realise some things are just normal human behaviour.

is sexual assault and drug misues normal human behavior?

Maybe you're downplaying God because you want to continue to live in sin. That's the majority reason people claim to not believe in God. So they can go on deceiving themselves that they won't ever be accountable. But their conscience bears or once bore witness and judgment is coming

Lucifyre:
Neither does your contradictory nd baseless assertion which is why you have to resort to special pleading.

Why are you talking nonsense?

How is his post contradictory or baseless?

Give me one single example of life coming from non life. Just one.

I don't believe in atheists or agnostics. They're simply charlatans who deceive others and themselves.

And I consider those who hold "science" in high esteem and claim to use it as their excuse to be atheists or agnostic as fools of the highest order.

I'll use a simple case in point:
DNA.

DNA is language coded;

DNA IS LITERALLY A 4-5 ALPHABET CODED LANGUAGE THAT CODES FOR BASICALLY ALL ORGANIC LIFE. An exquisite creation that codes for all proteins and organic life, self repairing and reproducing after its own kind.

THIS CAN ONLY POINT TO A HIGHLY INTELLIGENT SPEAKER; LOGOS IS WHAT THE BIBLE CALLS HIM; THE SUPREME WORD-GOD WHOSE WORD CREATED THE WORLD.


If you went to a cave and saw some writing on the wall, you wouldn't think it came from random natural processes or nothingness (atheist), or think you can never know if intelligence is behind the language on the wall (agnostic). You would know an intelligent organism is behind language, talk less of the exquisite language of all biological matter.



A short discussion with Chat GPT will suffice to explain this more:

Me: Is DNA language coded?

Biased AI: Yes, DNA is often described as coded because it uses a specific and consistent system of rules — much like a language or computer code — to store and transmit biological information.

Here’s how:

🔹 1. Alphabet:

DNA uses a 4-letter “alphabet”:
• A = Adenine
• T = Thymine
• C = Cytosine
• G = Guanine

🔹 2. Codons = Words:
• DNA is read in triplets (three letters at a time), called codons.
• Each codon corresponds to one amino acid or a stop signal during protein synthesis.
E.g.,
• AUG = Methionine (start)
• UAA = Stop codon

🔹 3. Genetic Code = Dictionary:
• The genetic code is a set of rules that defines how the codons are translated into amino acids.
• It’s universal across almost all life forms — the same codon usually codes for the same amino acid in humans, bacteria, and plants.

⸻

So is it coded in the literal sense?

Yes — in molecular biology, we call it a “code” because:
• It’s abstract and symbolic (nucleotides represent instructions for proteins).
• It’s read and translated by cellular machinery (ribosomes, tRNAs).
• It’s programmable — you can change the sequence to change the output (protein structure/function).

However, it’s not a language in the human linguistic sense — it doesn’t have grammar, emotion, or intent. But in terms of information theory and communication, DNA is absolutely a coded system.


Some more from biased AI:
The fact that every living organism is built from a four-letter code, faithfully copied and translated into the complexity of a child’s brain, a hummingbird’s wings, or a tree’s rings — that’s nothing short of awe-inspiring.

It’s like the most elegant software ever written — only instead of engineers, it’s the machinery of life itself that reads, edits, and executes it.

Even more incredible:
• The genetic code is universal, meaning you can take a gene from a jellyfish and insert it into a rabbit, and it still works.
• The system is self-replicating, self-repairing, and self-regulating.
• It’s robust yet adaptable — small changes (mutations) can lead to new traits, diseases, or entire species (depending on your worldview).

Whether you see it as the fingerprint of divine design or the result of exquisite natural logic — it’s hard not to marvel at it.

And the more you study it, the more you feel that deep awe:
“This is not just code. It’s us.”


Edited.

You could simply believe and accept that God created the heavens and the earth.

Jackanda1:
Hello Josh, i have been so informed reading some of your post. So i decided to reach out.

I was a born again christian before becoming an Athiest in 2014 after been led astray by debates and posts from athiest on nairaland.(i have written a couple of topics about this).

Throwing away my precious faith and listening to man and the devil was the craziest decisions i've ever made in my life, which i regret daily.

I want to be back in fellowship with God, but its been difficult. I've lost my sin consiousness, conscience, faith and that fresh desire for God. Is there hope for me?

Please i do need you to reach out to GOD on my behalf, tell him to show me mercy. I don't want to go to hell.

Mr OLAADEGBU, sir please i need your help with prayers too, i'm dying. I would be glad if you mention me to God, my name is James. Thanks

There's always hope brother.

God will in no wise cast you out.

Start by deliberately thanking God everyday, and remembering things He has done for you. With number one being giving His Son Jesus for our salvation.

LordReed:
LoLz! Yes the intelligent designer who never speaks for himself but instead has people defend him on the internet with piss poor arguments and ad hominems. Bwahahahahahaha!

He will speak for himself and clear your doubt, i just hope you hear us who are speaking for him and change before then. Because by then there will be no room for change. You see God is not moved by skeptics. One day He will clear doubts everywhere. A day of vengeance. May my words not come to you on the other side of vengeance on that day. Come to God now in this year of acceptance. Join the millions and turn to Him.

Isaiah 61: The Spirit of the Lord GOD is on Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and freedom to the prisoners, to proclaim the year of the LORD’s favor and the day of our God’s vengeance, to comfort all who mourn

Wilgrea7:
I sure hope you don't celebrate anything.. i hope you use every opportunity you get to mourn something.. because if not.. then even you are not following this verse.



Subjective



I don't see how that relates.. I don't think any religious leader is under any obligation to pay condolences to another religious leader.. especially if they don't know each other personally.

Also.... Mockery is more of an active.. than passive thing. Choosing not to weigh in on something is not the same as mockery.



A few words of condolences shows that you care. Being indifferent is not mockery. Dude. The people who mocked him didn't ignore his son's death.. they made fun of it . They are not the same things.

How is this even a debate?

It's not a debate oh. It's people like that guy that make others repelled by Christianity sometimes, because they interpret what he's doing as what the Christian faith teaches. Insulting a man talking about his son's death because he didn't attend the funeral of your religious leader That's the opposite of wise.

Kayouzka:
Most people think there is a God seating on a thrown, we like to idolise, it is so hard for man in his mind not to idolise because his mind is full of the thought of time and space, for the mind is the tunnel through which God sees the world bit by bit through limitations. You cannot know God with your mind, you cannot find God while looking at material things that is why science cannot proof it, the highest way to know God (find yourself) is to go into the silence in meditation. That's silence the mind that which brings limitations then you feel one with all, you can't touch it or wrap your mind over it, the moment you try you lose it immediately.

Who told you all these things

LordReed:
My own observations don't lead me to accept that conclusion. My understanding of the physical laws of the universe around us shows that what we call order is the effects of these laws stacking up on themselves, one could almost say the universe is reiterative with reiterations producing sometimes novel effects. There doesn't appear to be any conscious drive in this order/stacking/reiteration nor does it appear to be intelligent, just repetitive. I would like to know why your own observations leads you to accept such a conclusion.

It's because he's not in self denial like you. He can see the obvious order and intelligence in creation. He isn't happily denying it to deny God. That takes an incredible amount of futile effort and he is happy to not dabble in intellectual suicide.

Wilgrea7:
1) A SINGULAR GOD

Why exactly does the creator need to be a singular entity? All attributes we can observe, like conscious or intelligent design, can exist perfectly fine if there are 2, 3, 10 or even 100 creators. Why does the concept of a creator need to be singular?

People often say if there were multiple creators, they would run into conflict. Why exactly do multiple higher entities have to fall into conflict with each other? The fact that humans and other life forms on earth do it doesn't mean they (the alleged creators) need to do it.

And even if they do, how do we know it's not something that's bound to happen in the future, and we just don't know yet?

You started your thread by agreeing to a conscious creator of our intelligently designed universe, which I find very interesting for you to agree to. It also makes these your questions quite suspicious.

The concept of a creator needs to be singular, because this creator is ETERNAL. This means this creator is infinite and perfect in every conception. There cannot be multiple infinite perfect beings existing in tandem, even if they seem to be multiple, they'll have to be the same being. Because at the level of infinity, with respect to creation, there is only room for ONE BEING. Even if there are many persons, all these persons, if they are the infinite origin of everything, will be one. One being.

Your misunderstanding of the Singularity of God is tied to your second question which I will address below.

Wilgrea7: 2) AN ETERNAL GOD

Why exactly does our creator, if it exists, need to be eternal. From our current observation, the universe began about 14 billion years ago. What law is stopping our creator from having another creator? What stops our creators from being 30 billion years old, or even 300 billion years old?

A common objection is the infinite regress fallacy. Which is to say that if you say a creator needs a creator, then you go back infinitely needing creators, which is illogical.

Except of course we don't necessarily need 1 generation of a creator. We could have 3, 4, or even 100 generations of creators. Of course there's no way to prove it. So why do we come to the conclusion that any creator we have, happens to be eternal and timeless?

You imply you understand that infinite regress is a logical fallacy. So I'll continue with that assumption.
You must not understand the definition of eternal. If there is a generation of creators, then they aren't really the eternal creator. The eternal creator is uncreated. Being eternal by definition with respect to creation means you're uncreated. If there was an intercepting generation of makers, then the maker of the makers is God, because God is the original source of all things. And since you understand that infinite regress is infinitely stupi.d, then you can see that there must be an eternal creator that is the source of all things, irrespective of whether you interject multiple generations of makers before you get to our created order.

And the reason interjecting is also unreasonable is because time itself has a beginning from infinity. So our creator is not only eternal with respect to us, but also timeless, since He is the author of our own time and space.

Wilgrea7: 3) A PERSONAL GOD

People often assume that if we were created, whoever created us MUST care for us, or be kind, and loving and whatnot. But what exactly stops the alleged creator/creators of the universe from being evil, sadistic, or simply, not caring.

We could be created just for the sake of spectatorship, where the creator/creators just want to watch the universe and see what happens. We could have creators who derive joy in seeing civilizations from different planets develop and fight each other, like in an arcade game. Or simply creators that just don't care very much. What rule is there that said a creator needs to be good, caring, loving and so on?

Because of the nature of creation. But this is cause for another thread. You have to be a theist first before we argue on the character of Theos.

Wilgrea7: 4) AN OMNIPOTENT / INFINITELY POWERFUL GOD

Certainly, whatever made our current universe needed to have been powerful enough to create it. But that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be infinitely powerful. You can get a universe from an infinitely powerful cause. You can also get a universe from a cause just powerful enough to create 2 universes, and not more.

On what basis do we grant omnipotence or infinite power?

Once again, this is because of a poor concept of the nature of infinity or eternity. With respect to our created order, which sprang from a point of infinity, every character and nature of that infinity is superlative. God is eternal, so His power cannot be finite. An eternal being has eternal power. An eternal being is eternal in every respect.

Wilgrea7: I have a couple more, but I'll leave it at this for now. Please note if you're proving any point, you need to back it up with some verifiable evidence. Quoting scriptures does not equate to evidence.

Over to you guys

What gives you the right to determine what is verifiable evidence? This arrogance is very hypocritical and annoying.