₦airaland Forum

Reyginus: A cause must always be connected to the effect. That is cheap. The difficult thing is:
1. It is not possible to know the cause when you don't know the laws governing the system before it was caused.
2. It is not also possible to decipher the immediate effect of a cause you were not observing. We can never be sure that the expansion of the universe was the immediate effect of the gigantic explosion.
That said. What I think is, we will never know exactly what happened. We will have to accept assumptions based on calculations for now. Science is limited in understanding, never you think it has the answer to everything.
The problem with science is that it tries to do the work of philosophers.

1. We have to assume the our physical laws are consistent with that of the presumed time of big ban.g. For example causality. We presume causality operates at the time of the big ban.g. Why an assumption? Cos we have to start from somewhere.

2. I think an effect points directly at the cause, we should follow the evidence.

3. Science isn't omniscient, yet it makes the most breakthroughs, it questions our authorities and old truths and tradition. It proves the usefulness of knowledge.

Nope

Reyginus: Both don't create the same problem.
Whereas one is still happening, a phase in the other has being completed. If science is basically searching for explanations, why then is it making a claim when their is no explanation. The moment you admit that you are still searching for an explanation, it undermines any explanation being given.
And I still ask, how do you validate a phenomenon that is not yet understood?
And somehow I think you are misfiring. That substances breakdown at certain temperature do not in any way make the big b.ang plausible. Why should a scientific truth be evident by propability in the first place?
If the big b.ang is the beginning, why should it even be made to begin?
Is it logical to posit that the beginning of all things was disintegrated by temperature changes?
Science has not given us any proof to all this, just assumptions.

A cause mutually connected to its effect and vice versa. It is logically not beyond reach to seek out more understanding of the phenonema. Except you believe that in someway, we are severed from understanding the past.

Its the ultimate search is for truth not explanation. The big ban.g relates to the beginning of this Universe, there could be many more but I don't believe such. So it is not the beginning of all things, just follow the scientific arguments as they are, don't add your jara. Cos if you do, you will not understand it.

I wanted to explain deutriums, but I don't like the technical talk much.

BetaThings: Read it again.
My personal hatred for fa.,ots should NOT be MISCONSTRUED to equate the position of islam
Personally anything done to cull them is ok. That will ensure they go to Europe and the US to join those who truly love them. We can have our space after that
Nothing disturbing in my position at all
What is troubling is to have human-like living things having animals as their role models and who evolved from animals sitting at meeting influencing public policies that govern the lives of people created by God

So Islam doesn't preach hatred against homosexuals?

What about muslims being deported to Sahara desert?

BetaThings: Actually I have a copy of a fake Bible published by christians which they have been passing off as the Qur'an
Of course they mention triune in it. Doubt the falsification of Quranic literature?
Google a special report by The Economist of London entitled "Battle of the Books"
So there is no need for you to duplicate efforts

Gloat? Why? We don't compete like that. We just want to be left alone
As for this Bible, you guys try to fake our Qur'an, instinct is to say it serves you well
But these guys have been given too much right and they are on a roll
First thing is to get the same sex marriage prohibition bill passed by NASS and assented to by GEJ
With that in place, nobody dares publish any material eulogizing it in Nigeria

But personally, I believe fa..ots have no right except to choose how - rope, chair, gas or face a squad
But practically, backed by an act signed by GEJ On this, some vigilante action might be useful - no mortality but some disability and debility here, will focus minds

As a result of your personal religious masturbatio.nn you believe someone should be hung?! It is disturbing.

Marriage is the preserve of culture, hence such relationships are dictated by the cultural values. In our modern, multipluralistic society, hatred and xenophobia shouldn't have a place. Racists, homophobes are blinded by ideologies.

Reyginus: Please don't bring the water cycle into this. The water cycle explains a phenomenon while the big ban.g theory's stand, on the origin of the beginning explains a process that is already completed. They are two wide divide. And now their is a problem. How do you validate what is not , what never is, but always in the process of becoming?

Both are phenonema, basically the same problem. If you follow the Big Ban.g theory, you'd see the assumptions and structure which is built on the facts/data we have. We are basically searching for an explanation. However if the facts/data accumulate to a point that undermine the Big Ban.g theory, it becomes discarded.

Though there are many cosmological theories, but big ban.g is rooted to be the best for NOW. Absolutes aren't a luxury.

That the Universe is expanding, betrays an inference that it was smaller before. That certain chemical compounds break down at certain temperatures, that gravitational fields mold planets make the BB theory plausible.

Reyginus: Lol. Seriously, how would interpretations make sense out of facts? Lol. This scientists. SMH. Or facts are arrived at by interpretations?
If you can't witness a thing as it is happening, how do you now collect data's for interpretation of its onset? Lol. Scientists.
I'm not making the claim that science is a religion, but that it makes unfounded claims.

Facts are raw: like the redshift observations, rain fall, evaporation process. With these facts, implications and inferences are made and a bigger picture is drawn. Hence big bang and the water cycle.

Observation is still key but not all phenomena is expected to be observable. All phenomena is assumed though be clockwork like.

As to your claim that they are unfounded, in that they are not proven? Scientific theories move towards searching for truth, and thus goes beyond validity. Falsifiable theories work on the general laws of thought: that the truth isn't contradictory, and can be drawn into a concept. So it is not unfounded.

Zexten: LOL! Everyone is an agnostic in all respects. We never know anything. Not at all. Now, we assume some things to keep us sane and alive. Ever heard of the Munchaussen Trilemma? Check it, the axiomatic argument is what's best for us. In which case, thinking that there is almost definitely no god is enough to say there is no god.

Regardless, follow my train of thought, please. And let me know where I get you wrong. I suppose a quintessential atheist would say: "I am not sure there if there is a god. The evidence makes me think there isn't. However, there is a slight (significant - which is why I'm agnostic) chance that there is one." Awesome. Has he ever heard of Pascal's Wager then?

How does, there is almost no god mean there is no god??

I think it should be a quadilemma, because of the untenable position of a skeptic. However, let's talk about absolutes, like reality, like non existence of contradictions and the nonexistence of god. God is a badly drawn concept of contradiction and irrational, hence can't exist.

Reyginus: Nothing is complicated here. Only that science whose truth can only be gotten from proof is making 'unfounded claims'. Have you ever seen an anti-matter?

Reyg and Davidlyan don't seem to understand Science. We have facts, that is raw data and then interpretations, which try to make sense out of the facts. Definitely nobody can witness the big bang as it then was or the water cycle.

Also facts can be interpreted wildly, so a comprehensive "storyline" is created. And those are the theories. By the way, scientific truths are assumed to be provisional.

So does this mean Science is close related to Religion in characteristics? For religion, I mean Abrahamic religions. No, because Faith is the sole defining factor and foundation. It forsakes the validity of senses and reason to trust.

proflangdon: Please, if you don't have anything other thing to do than to criticize a humble Christian, go and sleep!! You think Obama is a Christian?? Well, Christians don't legalize abortion; they don't support gay marriages.
Please, a man sees a solution through God and he follows that path. If you don't believe, he believes!!

Like a leader in a secular state, he is to make non harmful options to the public available, not force down his personal beliefs down ppl's throats. Try to separate the issues

The problem is: GEJ represents a multireligious country which is not at ease with itself, therefore images such as these are not right. The Muslims especially will feel marginalized, they'd believe GEJ rules with Christian principles and probably under the influence of pastors like Adeboye.

Bad PR move.

ITbomb: He didn't kneel for the Pastor , he knelt before God cos God is the overall sovereignty.
.
If my people can humble themselves . . . .
.
The President's action just instilled more hope in me that God can see us through to the promised land

God is Pastor Adeboye?

I think philosophy finds the justification for naturalism.

It was good you two had a discussion and not kill yourselves.

vedaxcool: ^
Truly I won't want to believe you still have difficulty grasping my points, which still remains that Islam emphasized the importance of women beyond her sexua.lity through the hijab and mores which simply removes the problem of depression etc as presented by the depravity of consumerism hence this fact remains paramount that Islam understood that a consistent logic that is not at the whims of any remains a panacea towards this depravity! Make any somersault you want it does not side track the real issues presented!

The use of hijab amplifies the objectification of women, because it doesn't address the mentality of men towards women. Also the hijab offers no real physical protection. Rather it blocks communication with the outer world.

First of all, whoever made that OP, doesn't understand the workings and Origins of Science. Yes, there are scientific assumptions, but those don't match up to Faith; which itself is a very complex subject.

Ethics in Science is a consequence of morality in the general society. And a limit proportionate to the society's tolerance is placed Science.

Also note that laws are not proven per se, rather explain "how" a particular subject works. For example Boyle's Law.

Yes, women are unhappy with the objectification of their bodies by the media, politicans and marketers. However a hijab doesn't address the root causes: that is the mentality which society indulges; that women are less human. Hence loss of dignity. If a woman is viewed to deserve the dignity of person, she wouldn't be treated as a good or an infant.

I think the supernatural is a contradiction of itself, irrationally uncertain.

^^^
Yet women don't have a say$

@vexad

But the hijab appears to be a tool to secure the husband's or father's proprietary rights over his wife or daughter.

Besides men aren't subjected to such regimentary dressing.

Sagamite: Nah!

A subset of animals that have pleasurable s.ex strictly and exclusively with animals of their s.ex even when an animal of opposite s.ex is available are homosexual.

Prisoners having sex with other prisoners are not necessarily gay, so your definition falls there.

Only fucktards like Logicboy with his failed education would say prisoners that have sex with other prisoners when they have no access to the opposite sex are gay.

Ok. I get your point. But to you homosexual se.x is ok, but girls must be f.ucked on the side, right?

Animals that have sex with animals of their sex is homosexual.

Ubenedictus: yep yes i dont know how u jumped from a to c, that a position was taken against Galileo's ideas doesn't neccesaryly imply that christianity in general or catholicism in particular is against galileo's ideas talk less of "its likes".
The judgement against galileo's ideas in 1616 though unfortunate and misguided was to shield the populance from what was consider uncertain hypothesis which challenged d literal reading of scripture without proof, while his house arrest was supposed to be a punishment for breaking his promise to card. Bella. among other things

Your argument is getting messy and unclear.

You seem to take Galileo's views as mere hypothesis rather from what he saw on his telescope.

Homosexual behaviour is equal to homosexual in animals

No?!?

pleep: This is fuckin dumb! what on earth is classified as gay behavior among fish, anus sex abi?

Obviously male fish ban.ging make fish. Besides most homosexuals don't do anal sex surprisingly.

Sagamite: So taking the side of homosexuality and supporting its introduction is the metric for open-mindedness?

Shooting at them and throwing them into prison isn't exactly open minded

Open Mind

You often insist that its unnatural, abnormal, anticultural, and it needs to be cured.

Sagamite: It is puzzling, I want answers from research. Maybe even a cure if possible instead of people telling me to be funky and accept it.

But you don't seem open minded about it.

Sagamite: I like the way you used "probably" but I would have liked it more if you added "that I know" after "everyone".

LOOOL!!

But seriously, homosexuality is puzzling, despite the homophobic hatred devoted to it especially by Abrahamic religions, it still strives. Reasonable suspicion surrouding key players like Jesus, Paul, David to commit such acts. Saudi Arabia, Catholic Church, even Africa, there are still homosexuals. Socialization ought to have wiped it out.

vedaxcool: Islam offered humanity a great solution to the above psychological this, emotional that, mental this, sexu.al that is the Hijab,through the hijab women were honored, the above article shows a fundamental problem in women in the west, lack of self esteem due to the recurring theme of popularizing stark unclothedness and sexu.al banditry: hence to elevate the woman folks Islam brought the hijab that guaranteed women honor.

Below is a woman's understanding of the role hijab plays in the life a muslim woman:

In Islam, hijab is not demanded of
women by men. Hijab and modesty is
ordered upon women by the Merciful
Ever-Living, Ever-Watchful God, as a
protection and a barrier. A means of
interacting in society while holding the
line against anyone who would seek to
harass, hit on, annoy, or irritate them. It
is an outward symbol of an inward
spiritual reality and aspiration. It is not a
political flag for the Islamic state, it is not
a sign of women’s subjugation to men, it
is not a litmus test for religiosity, and it is
not a measure of a woman’s piety, family
background, or sign of her upbringing.
It is one act, a result of one of God’s
commands. Everyone tries to obey Him,
all of us fall short. As one of the
`ulama (scholars) in Chicago once
taught: “A person’s public sin is no worse
than your private sin.”
The attitude that hijab and Islamic dress
codes exist to protect men are an utter
and total fallacy. How do we know that?
Let us approach the Book of Allah
subhanahu wa ta`ala (exalted is He):
“O Prophet, tell your wives and your
daughters and the women of the
believers to bring down over themselves
[part] of their outer garments. That is
more suitable that they will be known
and not be abused. And ever is Allah
Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 33:59)
This verse comes with the cause or ‘illa
behind the commandment: “so that they
may be known and not abused.” Notice
that the verse does not come with any
mention of men. This is about the
protection of women’s physical safety
and presence from men, not the
protection of men’s spiritual state from
women. The fact that this protection
may occur is a benefit of the Hijab for
the community, not its purpose. From
this, we can take four points that are
critical to a healthy Islamic
understanding of hijab.
1. Hijab is not there to protect men. If
you think it is there to protect you
as a man, we have turned an act to
be done for Allah (swt), into an act
to be done for us . It is there to protect
women, so do not pervert the purpose of
this command of God (swt). There is no
doubt that we come across immodesty
on TV, at school, work, and all over. We
should not use the fact that a sister is
dressed in a way that does not fit God’s
commandments (or our personal
interpretation of God’s commandments)
into a reason for having bad manners, a
lack of respect, and a lack of humility.
For brothers, we should lower our gazes

Imagine if women in the west saw through the schemes of the vile men and took up the hijab, they would be saved from so many psychological problems

Do you feel its wrong for women to express themselves in whatever manner they wish, like wear the hijab?

Cos I feel a woman will be happy if she is presented with equal opportunities as her counterpart and freedom accessible to him too.

[quote author=*Kails*]come to think of it,
g@y ppl are not going to stop
trying to prove h0mos3xual tendencies are natural.

By any means!!

But the fail is that these fish do it ultimately to attract...females. [/quote]Probably everyone is bisexual