₦airaland Forum

ubunja:
let girls do their thing. stick to your thing - getting pussy.

long time. Have you seen the female miseducationists? They are like arrogant and delusional nursery school kids who envy a physics professor so much that they took pen and paper and wrote jargons while convincing themselves that they are doing great physics and unlocking the secrets of the universe and they would take no correction or criticism.

Sandra8:
I love you too babe and how you whine. Hope you also read and comment on "my men cheat 2"

I am not whining. I can only expect more lies; delusion; superfluous, and illogical stuffs from you female miseducationists.

cococandy:
Go and find the kids you left in other men’s houses.
What goes around does come around.

It's normal for a feminist to be cruel and heartless towards any man. What wrong has this man done? Does he deserve to treated this way? What if he never cheated on his wife or had a child out of wedlock?

You quickly swept the wife's callousness aside and attacked the man. In a feminist's sight, nothing is ever a woman's fault, instead men are to be blamed. No effort to take responsibility for their actions. *spits*

A woman says my purpose is to meet a woman's expectation in order to enter her pussy. Not surprised. Fact is, your life has no purpose except the purpose you give to it. Because many men are beta men does not mean the true value of all men is to be beta.

Female miseducationists are like arrogant and delusional nursery school kids who envy a physics professor so much that they took pen and paper and wrote jargons while convincing themselves that they are doing great physics and unlocking the secrets of the universe and they would take no correction or criticism.

Blackivy29:
martinez39. The past about how recent working is, is very true. Around 1890.

Lol. Lmao.

You don't seem to get it, if women now have equal rights, what are you feminists still bitching about? If men now embrace gender equality and gender equality is part of the constitution, what are you feminists still bitching about and how are men your problem? How are men still thinking they are superior to women? If I came out on twitter and wrote that men are superior to women giving any reason whatsoever, both men and women will descend hell on me. Funny enough there would be virtually no outrage if I said things like "women are smarter", "the future is female", etc. Imagine the hell if I said "the future is male"?

Men are not your problem. Your problem is who you see in the mirror. 1890 is not "several years ago" or "recently", that's cunning on your part for the purpose of misleading your readers or perhaps, like all feminists, you didn't know what you were saying and you've gone to do your research.

apart from that, you concurred with all i wrote. We need emotionally strong men but the craze for men more than average physically is dying down. In third world countries sure. But with recent times and development, intellect rules completely.

The craze of men with more than average physical strength is not like it used to be but it's still important and ever in demand for the military and manual labour market. Your house, school buildings etc. did not assemble themselves by intelligence alone. By the way, I never said I never said that in today's world, physical strength is all that matters. Read my response to Sandra8 on her thread and know what I think true power is.

Michellekabod2:
This is so petty and disgraceful!
Look at what you have reduced yourself to? So people can't express themselves again?with redpill you, Martinez39 and all ubunja disciples concluded his miseducations are "truth" and here you are debunking someone claims as unintelligent.

See, Michelle, you have to grow a tough skin and stop whining. The fact that he disagrees doesn't mean she is not allowed to express herself, grow up. No one owes it to women to agree with them and not criticise them. CAPSLOCKED has the freedom to agree with ubunja and disagree with any female on nairaland. Ubunja too was attacked by females throughout his stay here but you didn't see any man crying that they are taking Ubunja's freedom of expression away.

The fact that you think and are crying that disagreeing and harshly criticising someone mean you are taking the person's freedom of expression shows you still have some childish entitlement and still have some growing up to do.

Do you guys reason? Why can't you offer a rebuttal to her posts without claiming ladies are trying to measure up to the redpill? Do you think all ladies care about the miseducations and see it as a competition?

CAPSLOCKED, JONNYSPUTE, AstroG, MJBOLT and healthserve are my witnesses that I countered their points. What were their responses? Telling me that I am trying to sound smart. Only Blackivy29 responded with a counter even her claims weren't accurate and doesn't prove any sexism against women. Why then should CAPSLOCKED waste his time countering when we know you women are going to give us the same emotional bullcrap?

Is not safe to open a thread as a female because folks like you will come out to troll and say we should do more of wig or gossip talk...

If trolling and criticism makes you unsafe, then you are weak indeed. Get some spine and toughen up. SMH.

Martinez39 may deny being a misogynist but he is. All talks about ladies from men he endorses as truth but a topic about men by ladies he trolls and try to make ladies feel less inferior or intelligent than ubunja....check out

This is simply not true. Prove me wrong. Be you male or female, if you are speaking facts, I will be on your side. Unlike feminists, I don't make situations a male vs female thing.

Martinez39 threads,if they don't potray men as victims always...but a thread of a female crying foul he will say ladies always play the victim....

I don't portray men as victims without any good reasons. Prove me wrong. Calling me a misogynist doesn't mean sh1t. I have been called a racist but it doesn't mean sh1t to me.

Little wonder Martinez mentioned Astro G the renowned misogynist in his post? Because he wants him to come insult women! Martinez39 will never see an err in the misogynistic post by Astro but will fly with the speed of a falcon to call feminist misandrists!

Shame though, shame

Feminists are misandrists. Take it or leave it.


Beside, you have been running away each time I ask you to prove the accusations you've made against ubunja. Anyway, good day.

Blackivy29:
Martinez39, has much as you attempted to write smart, i will give you credit, you forgot to do one important thing, face reality.

Stop projecting yourself on me. I don't write to sound smart. I only state facts. If you were saying the truth, I would support your argument even if you were the devil himself. This post of mine will be my last response to any female miseducation. You people are spreading grievous lies and are incorrigible in your delusions.

Female rights were recently implemented. Several years ago, a female couldnt step into a school to recieve the same education you do now. The same goes for career.

This is completely false.

It is a mans world, but not because women dont make the effort(history has witnessed ancient female scholars who were made martyrs of science, art, philosophy etc. Women like hypathia of alexandra) but that because of a mans physical appearance, like strenght, it became a normal thing to take him as the head. In your great great grand parents time, occupations like wrestling, farming etc were ideal of any man.

In the past you are talking about, the survival of any society depended on their overall physical strength of men. The more physical strong and aggressive men they had, the better the chances of survival. Even women knew this.
1) War was rampant and strong men were needed to win wars;
2) predatory wild beasts were more in contact with men and strong men were needed for protection;
3) farming was a big thing then and givrn crude as it were, it needed strong men to overcome the manual labour inherent in farming then;
4) Hunting wild beast needed strong men;
5) Wrestling involves physical strength and the greatest display of physical strength in the human race lies in masculinity so it shouldn't surprise you that it was seen as a man's sport then. Given the fact that society needed physically strong men than ever, men were encouraged to wrestle and partake in activities that built and toughened them up. Now, wrestling is for both men and women so, what's your problem?

Given all these, masculinity was important and men had to be tough, they couldn't run away from reality and they had to leaders. Women knew this too and weren't bitching about feminism. This is no longer relevant as men, since a very long time, now see women as equals. So I don't know what feminists are still bitching about. Men and the constitution now acknowledge women's right.

A physically handicapped man was not regarded.

I agree. Society was harsh to both disabled men and women.

Not development has changed things. Stephen hawkins was a genius. Now civilization needs men with standard IQs, not muscle mass.

Society needs both. When I talk about strong, I talk of men that are intelligent and are strong and tough emotionally, mentally, and physically. If you think we don't still need muscle mass ask your relatives in the military. A man that does away with emotional incontinence, takes responsibility for his actions, has a tough skin, uses logic instead of emotions, etc.

Yes, countless of times, men mention how their strenght places them above females. So dont deny. dont mention as.trog in my thread again.

This is false. Prove me wrong. You feminists are living somewhere else.



Anyway, since female miseducationists want to fool themselves and spread lies while egotistically and stubbornly beating down any correction and facts that don't agree with them, there is nothing anyone can do. Good day

CAPSLOCKED:
THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WANT.

The female miseducationists are like arrogant and delusional nursery school kids who envy a physics professor so much that they took pen and paper and wrote jargons while convincing themselves that they are doing great physics and unlocking the secrets of the universe and they would take no correction or criticism.

Sandra8:
You don't tell us women what to believe dear. You may try but we aren't buying honey

I am not telling you what to believe. If that is all you picked from my write up, you case is beyond help. Facts don't care about your feelings and it seems your feelings don't care about facts. Enjoy riding your feelings and feminist ego. Have a nice day.

Blackivy29:
I have to give credit to the original creator of the post, "THE FALSE SENSE OF MALE POWER AND DOMINATION", sandra8.

The credit is undue.

I'm going to write briefly, based on the heading...
Most men are controlled by two things, namely ego and libido. This two mainly influences of the male sex. Male ego is the self pride of being a man.

This is wrong. If you people are going to be miseducationists, you guys must have a penchant for stating facts and researching the stuff you put out to your readers. The male ego is not the self pride of being men instead it is the ego of being a "real man" as women define it. It is tied to female validation and attention. That's it. Any other ego is due to excelling in life, unduly high self esteem, and being placed in positions of authority and these are egos that women develop too. Men are not proud or feel like they are the best things to happen since slice bread because they are men. Get your facts right.

In my previous post, i mentioned the fact that the concept of female equality is generally new. Thats why the movement "feminism" is attacked with the aim of silencing the voices of women (and men), who cry out for their rights to be considered.

Hell no. Surprisingly, men want gender equality more than feminists. Feminists are not crying for their rights (women already have rights and gender equality has been accepted by the constitution and society) instead they are egoistic misandrists and women supremacists who play the victim card; see oppression of the female gender everywhere even when it does not exist; and are looking for free passes and privileges even at the expense of men just because they are women. Feminists are also hypocrites who claim equality but do not live up to that. They always want to eat their cake and have it.

Feminists destroy the family unit; damaged men-women relationships; made women something, and spat on and derided men as their oppressors and problem whereas men are not misogynistic and they support equal rights for women. Feminists act like women do not have equal rights and men are oppressing them.

Apart from using unreasonable lines like "feminist wont get married", advocates of women empowerments are assulted by using another point, THAT MEN COMMAND MORE AUTHORITY THAN WOMEN.

You feminists like paint a world where patriarchy and misogyny are the orders of the day. Men today like gender equality and women have their equal rights. Prove me wrong. Little wonder no one takes feminists seriously. Away with the victim mentality.

You forgot to add that both men and women today would frown upon anyone, man or women, that says men command more respect than women.

Most times if asked why it is generally assumed so, the reply would vary from qouting the bible to claiming that men have more physical raw strenght than women.

You have been lying all through your posts. Seems victimhood is sweet to you and you don't want to have any personal relationship with reality. So someone has told you that feminists won't get married because men have more physical raw strength than women?

Well, with egoistic attitudes of "I don't need a man and I am better off without a man" and undue praise of single motherhood, most feminists end up not marrying. Since men are beginning to take the red pill, they are pushing feminists aside because they know that feminists are not fit to be wives or girlfriends.


Cc. CAPSLOCKED, JONNYSPUTE, AstroG, healthserve, MJBOLT

CAPSLOCKED:
ALL THEY EVER SAY IS HIS DICK, THAT DICK, THEIR DICK, MEN'S DICKS. THERE'S NOTHING A FEMINIST OR WOMAN POWER ACTIVIST SAYS ON THE INTERNET THAT WON'T REVOLVE AROUND THE PENIS.

ANYWAY, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TRUTH IN THE THINGS SHE SAYS BUT YOU GET DISSAPOINTED WHEN YOU SEE TOO MUCH EMOTIONS AND NO LOGIC AT ALL.

Exactly! There is a little truth in what she said and that truth is if you make a man think with his p€nis, you can easily manipulate him as a woman. This is what we all know so her write up doesn't reveal anything new. However, how she came to that conclusion is logically flawed and other claims in her write up are wrong.

Kaycee54321:
True talk. She should have made more effort to make reasonable points. All those things she said there just looks like trolling.

She threw in a lot of garbage because she wanted her write up to have some quantity and sound like she was wisely demystifying stuffs and revealing some mystery like a sage.

Guest007:
It was a lie.

Have fun in your own world of self deceit. Good night.

Kaycee54321:
From a neutral point of view, this is just embarrassing

What do you mean by 'Testosterone naturally blocks proper functioning of the brain?'

What kind of science is that?


I saw that and couldn't even complete your post

This is very weak... Unless of course you just want to troll...

Lol. She thinks she has facts. Most women always want to feel that they are superior but these women can't come with something original as they always copy men given their "he vs she" mentality. Even when they copy, they fail miserably. Ubunja brings facts and doesn't beat around the bush but these girls write nonsense and then feel they are up to something. What motivated female miseducations? The success of Ubunja's miseducations. They just want to compete and prove some point.

Fountainofyouth:
Nothing like have a nice day anything, come and prove your lie to me by saying you have never ever been manipulated before, I don't know what feelings have got to do with this.

I never said I have not been manipulated before neither was the centre of our discussion about whether all men have taken the bait. You are cleverly switching from "taking the bait" to the more general "manipulate". Our discussion is about whether all men will take the bait. I understand that you pumped on emotions. It's normal for women. Have a nice day.

Fountainofyouth:
He is trying to be logical lol, all of a sudden he doesn't shame people especially women go through his comments and see bashing wonders, so who is he trying to deceive......

As I said, I don't scare or shame people. What you think is shaming on my part happens to facts. Prove me wrong.

Fountainofyouth:
Pains.

Either something is right or wrong. I don't do emotions.

Fountainofyouth:
Every man has been manipulated once or more in their life, except you want to deceive yourself.

Lol. Obviously, you are arguing with your feelings because you can't think and argue straight and you are bent on proving your point right at any cost. Whether every man will take the bait is different from whether every man has taken the bait. Have a nice day.

Fountainofyouth:
Pains, this works for every man, deal with it.

It's a fact that not every man takes the bait. Not every man can be manipulated.

Sandra8:
I'm not flawed in my reasoning dear. Don't worry since you love data and facts my next post will come with them but with links, so you can do additional read up, that way I don't bore my audience dear. Thanks for the feed back

@Emboldened
Then you didn't read my first post. You are quick to run away from your fvck up. I am not asking you for links. Anyway, good night and continue floating your bubble of self deceit and feminist ego.

Guest007:
Oh, I'm so scared, hold my purse

I don't try to scare people or even shame people. I am either saying facts, asking questions to cure my ignorance or keeping quiet. Can you sincerely say that what I wrote is a lie? Don't project yourself on me. I don't shame or scare people in believing the way I want.

Sandra8:
You tried in your analysis but you failed to understand that as educating as your post was it was boring to many people. I kept mine simple so I don't lose much of my points in write up dear

My write up is as simple as it can be and contained all the points I wanted to pass across. It's not in anyway complex except you want to kid yourself. Who told you it's boring to others? Did you read everyone's minds? Truth is more important than simplicity. Women will always be women. Your write up contains a lot of falsehood and bias which I pointed out and you are trying to call my write up "boring" to avoid this.

The only thing you got right is the fact that a man is easy to manipulate when he is thinking with his dick but the way you logically arrived at this is flawed.

Guest007:
Typical, you had to come out here and prove op right

He is not proving any point. They are certain heartless and rugged men that no woman had better lead on. These men will rape and beat the living daylight out of you if you lead them on a decide not to keep your own end of the bargain. These men exist and you can't tell them by looks.

Sandra8:
A man as a being is built physically powerful. You can tell by the mass of muscles he has in his body. This muscles makes his claim to power flirting in his eyes and through the eyes of men, women have come to believe that true power lies with being physically strong...how far off from the truth!

Lol. Do you live on Mars or Neptune? I want to see your teacher and parents if you really don't know that no one believes this trash. Men and women know that true power lies in money and strong political/royal positions and the likes. Donald Trump is more powerful than John Cena because he can get more important things done and he has control of important stuff. I don't know in which universe is physical strength seen as true power today. No one thinks men are superior to women. Society is now secular and gender equality is an integral part of the constitution of many countries. So which men and women think men are superior because men have more physical strength? It would spark an outrage anywhere if a man says women are inferior. Are you sure you reside on Earth?

True power lies where you least expect it. I'll explain.
Going by body muscles alone man is amongst the weakest in the kingdom of the beast ( yes beast!) many other beast out number man in terms of body muscle mass, from buffalo, rhino, hippopotamus, elephant, blue whale etc. Yet all this are beneath man in terms of where true power lies. I guess you now know what I mean?

All are beneath man for the same reason man is the only animal to build very advanced societies and have gotten to a level where they have the tools to drive to extinction the beasts you listed that are stronger than man. I know you are driving at intelligence.

Men and women have equal (if not more for women) brain matter and mass with which to out smart the biggest muscle mass on earth!
And here is where true power lies.

In men, the average weight is about 1370g and in women, about 1200g. This is a simple scientific fact you could have just googled. You have a feminist bias and want to score some cheap points against the male gender and then proudly wave your feminists flag of woman supremacy and woman power in your trademark ego. Even if we agree that intelligence is true power, then you will have to give it to men because throughout history they have dominated when it comes to arts, science, engineering, strength and literature. The Nobel Prize winners in science and literature have been predominantly men by many miles.

However, by our capitalist world, mere intelligence is not power except when it generates wealth. Your secondary school teacher that knows advanced mathematics in and out is not as powerful as Dangote.

Men have made women believe that being physically stronger than them means they are superior or better than we are but that is bad logic for we are far smarter than men are!

As I have said, I don't what planet you reside in. Which men are you talking about? Which women are you talking about? I know many females will come to support you because their feelings agree with you and you are all like that. Evidence speaks for themselves. Men dominate when it comes to scientific, artistic, and literary achievements. Prove me wrong. No society can stand and last long without strong and masculine men. There are smart women, there are dull women. There are smart men, there are dull men.

Ladies do not doubt me when I say this. Men's brains are naturally faulty, unlike women's brain. Men have a hormone called testosterone that naturally blocks the proper functioning of their brains. For the most part starting from 10-70 years of their lives, it blocks the natural function of their brains and their d*cks takes over. This is one major flaw in their brains that women have been exploiting and should continue to exploit.

No doubt, emotions and sexual arousal are big blows to many men's logic. However, testosterone plays many important roles in male development. Women too have their faults. Women, in general, are more emotional and tend to tow the path of least resistance in the course of life. There are few exceptions.

Another weakness in men's brain is the need for them to experience thrills on a regular basis, this causes adrenalin rush and a surge in dopamime( a neurotransmitter associated with euphoria and pleasure). This causes men to pursue sports like watching football, falling in love, cheating, going into drugs etc just to feel a momentary high.
And guess what ladies, when all of this happens mens frontal lobe ( the seat of reason stops working) and he is on autopilot, basically acting only on stimuli.

This is not true. Wanting to experience thrills and even adventures and challenges are common to both male and female. The male and female brains both have dopamine and both are designed to get hooked on behaviours and substances that cause a surge of dopamine. Men and women have been victims of junk food addiction, porn addiction, masturbating compulsively, drugs and alcohol abuse etc. By the way, men tend to do more sports than women because, thanks to testosterone, they can build the muscles and physical strength suited for sports. Men are better at sports and they competitive on an intensive and higher level compared to women. Also, men's sports are more successful and widely followed and watched by both men and women than women's sports by a million miles.

In the US, average male athletes who cannot dream of achieving excellence in the male categories become transgender women, participate in women's sport, and top of the women they face. These transgender athletes even shatter female records with ease.

So here is how we take take power from men.
We get them to underuse their brains and not the other way round.
Ladies always remember, when your man is sad he uses his brain capacity more but when he is happy he does the exact opposite. Lol.
As feminists we need to know this.

I knew you were a feminist. Feminists will always hate men even if men sacrificed themselves in time of war to keep them safe. So you admit that feminists are out to manipulate?

Making your man reason everything out with you, will only give him an advantage when you can get all you want with your wit without saying even a word!

So you admit that when it comes to reasoning, men outdo women? By your feminist standards, is this sexist?

If you are in a relationship, ensure your man gets his regular dose of adrenaline and dopamine from sports (and not from you p*ssy lol) by encouraging him to watch more sports and by joining him (it's boring most times but just pretend and not by forcing him to watch zeeworld like you do.) he will love it and love you more. That's the point when you get to exploit him, cause he cannot refuse you - he won't want to ruin the moment!

Good to see the mission to manipulate men but this is wrong. Are footballers, body builders, basketball players, etc. easier to manipulate than men who don't play sports? Men get manipulated when they are simps. Once they become redpilled, they can't be manipulated regardless of whether they play sports or not, or whether they watch zeeworld or not.

If you aren't in a relationship, get men's testosterone to work for you. Look your best, smell nice, have good charisma and speak well. Always ensure whenever you interact with a man he is never in total control of his brain, that way you always get favours thrown at you due to his testosterone working up his d*ck.

Only feasible with simps.

Any man who doesn't take your bait is not worth wasting your precious time on. Move on many other men are waiting to be exploited. Always remember that men within your age range are easier to manipulate this way, than men much older, unless you are a pro.

Stay tuned for more!

A men who doesn't take the bait is a redpilled man. It's really funny to see a topic like this and see females supporting it. These are the very females that would scream at ubunja and myself when we discuss female manipulation. These are the females that would bug you with "there are good women out there and not every woman is like that". Hehe, a leopard can't change it's spot.




Cc. CAPSLOCKED, JONNYSPUTE, AstroG, healthserve, MJBOLT, CosmicPhoenix,

DaddyRochie1642:
It's a good thing I was detoxified a long time ago,

I need more Red Pills to swallow,
Thank God they're never out of Stock

More is never enough and they are never out of stock. Carry go.

Rekhina:
And What will u do Harvey ? Beat me like martinez39 promised

I never promised to beat you.

dragonflyy:
Christian apologists (well, most of them) like claiming that the universe is too complex to have not been created by an intelligent being. what most of them usually look over is the quality or the attributes of said being. hypothetically, a supreme intelligence capable of manufacturing a complex universe should be complex himself. such a being cannot just appear out of nowhere, thus, my question to the religious apologists: WHO CREATED GOD?

Carl Sagan couldn't have said it better when he said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidences. The claim of any religious god is a very extraordinary claim. The fact that no one has ever seen any extraordinary evidence for God shows that religious folks are just kidding themselves when they claim to know that their gods exists.

When I ask someone that believes in Yahweh for proof of Yahweh's existence, I start hearing scripture verses, arguments about the complexity of the DNA , "anything that begins to exist must have a cause", etc. are these people alright? This is like self-imposed mental illness.

Before, I was always ready to argue with them but as I grew up, I discovered that people who want to reason will reason, those that want to be deluded will remain deluded. Your reasonable arguments will begin to make sense only when they make themselves open to your arguments by choosing to be reasonable. It's a choice. Even if you floor them with facts, their lunacy will take another form and continue in it's match. Let me give you specific examples :

1) Christians never believed in evolution instead they proudly claimed God literally molded man from the soil. When Darwin published his theory of evolution, he was attacked but when evidences for evolution emerged, they changed their narrative and claimed the story of creation in genesis was an allegory and that god used evolution to create stuffs.

———————————————————–————

2) In the rastafari movement, Haile Selassie was seen in high esteem and many believed he was the second coming of Jesus, legitimating this by reference to their interpretation of the nineteenth chapter of the Book of Revelation. Some perceive him as part of a Trinity, alongside God as Creator and the Holy Spirit, the latter referred to as "the Breath within the temple. During the 1960s, many Jamaican Rastas professed the belief that Haile Selassie would never die. The 1974 overthrow of Haile Selassie by the military Derg and his subsequent death in 1975 resulted in a crisis of faith for many Rastas. Some practitioners left the movement altogether. Others remained, and developed new strategies for dealing with the news. To bolster their argument,
A) they pointed to the fact that no corpse had been produced; in reality, Haile Selassie's body had been buried beneath a toilet in his palace, remaining undiscovered there until 1992.
B) Another perspective within Rastafari acknowledged that Haile Selassie's body had perished, but claimed that his inner essence survived as a spiritual force.
C) A third response within the Rastafari community was that Selassie's death was inconsequential as he had only been a "personification" of Jah rather than Jah himself. (lol. After claiming that he wouldn't die).

Even when Haile Selassie was alive, he denied being immortal but the rastafaris saw the denial as evidence for his immorality. You see, when people have decided to be deluded, there is nothing you can do.

There is nothing you can do against people if they have made up their minds to stupidly believe things. When you floor them with facts, their stupidity will take another form and continue it's match. Sometimes, they will keep repeating stuffs that have been debunked over and over again.


XxSabrinaxX, CAPSLOCKED, LordReed, HardMirror, HopefulLandlord

XxSabrinaxX:
I don't sleep and wake up on Nairaland, you know.


I assume you mean the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Problem is, what you have stated is not the 2nd law. Perhaps, calling it "Shadeyinka's Law of Entropy" would be more apt!

""Is it always possible to find order in a chaotic system?" Ramsey Theory, described in the relatively easy-going, equation-free lecture above (given as part of the Millenium Mathematics Project), offers a reasonable way of determining the minimum amount of structure in a given system".

"Basically, if you have some chaotic system, and you start dividing it up, you'll come up with an "interesting" structure. Something will eventually repeat or have some sort of form (order)".
=> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/qkvwvw/­is-it-always-possible-to-find-order-in-chaos

You just don't know what you're talking about.


LOL. Why are you repeating yourself? You are only asserting the impossibility of infinite regression. You are not demonstrating it. There is no reason what so ever that one must reach a point of infinite causation. Even if there were a point, you don't get to magically insert your god (classic God of the Gaps fallacy). We live in a house (local time, local universe, local rules). Everything we know breaks down at Planck Time. Chaos ensues. You are living in this house, in this time, in this system of causality and then attempting to infer what goes on outside of the house based on what is happening in the house! The only thing you can say about the outside is "I do not know". Any answer besides this exposes dishonesty and deliberate distortion to suit your selfish objectives and i'd expect better from you, Mr. Shadeyinka.
"If god has always existed, how is that not in itself any infinite regress?" was my question. You have yet to answer this. Please kindly explain, in clear words and/or terms which would not obfuscate people and make them look for a dictionary, how your god would have "always existed".


How convenient indeed!

I believe, Mr. Shadeyinka, based on all our previous encounters and even on this thread, that you have sound knowledge in basic science, am I right? Now notice how your claim that "GoD iS a SpIrIt!" makes your god's existence utterly unfalsifiable, and if you can't test a claim, if you can't confirm or deny it any way, then there's absolutely no reason to believe said claim. The claim is ultimately useless. I've said this countless times already. All you've done is give me a reason to dismiss your position and/or argument even more!

Now,
1> How do you possibly know that god is immaterial and thus exists outside our natural world? Please, no analogies or evasiveness this time. Be direct and honest!
2> How did you find this out in the first place?
3> What is the difference between an unobservable and/or untestable immaterial god and an entity that does not exist?
4> How can a thinking, decision-making god make decisions if it existed our natural world and is/was an eternal being not restricted by space-time?

Your line of reasoning is the inevitable fall back point for anyone faced with the cold, hard fact that they cannot provide a coherent framework for what they WANT to believe. It's the theological equivalent of the kid losing a playground argument who just gets frustrated and says, "I win times Infinity!", takes his ball, and heads home. There is ZERO difference between that young lad and you making this inane, incoherent assertion that "GoD iS a SpIrIt! He iS BeYoNd ScIeNcE!"


In the face of our ongoing discourse, why isn't this a [url= https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought-terminating_cliche ]thought-terminating cliche[/url]?


If God isn't the Origin or termination of "infinite regression" with respect to the origin of things, then what is it? (for since an infinite regression is impossible, one must certainly have a Primary Source of all things.)

With which instrument do you think you will need to test/evaluate/quantify/detect/measure God if He is the maker of all Physical Laws, Constants, Matter and their interactions? All these things came to being at/after the Big Bang.

The answer is certainly NOT "I don't know!": For such is an escapist answer. There is certainly at least a Creator God: however, we can argue about His nature, ability, name etc. But there must be a SOURCE: this source I call GOD.
Can't find the
I think I have shown with enough proof that an infinite regression isn't possible in the real world. Projecting this into the past simply means that there is an origin of things. It can also be shown that this Origin isn't a constant else, there would be no initiation of change leading to the formation of the universe. I have also shown you that whatever caused the Big Bang must have done it in a controlled way because an uncontrolled expansion is an explosion (Chaos). Chaos cannot form atoms and elements.

Whatever/Whoever is making these changes in states of the Universe is God. You may disagree about His name, His attributes, His powers but you cannot disagree that HE IS!


All robots are programmed either electronically or mechanically.

AI robots are given codes to mimic the way humans are likely to behave in certain instances. The codes (invisible, untouchable, unmeasurable) control the hardware.Unfortunatly, our AI robots can never get to the level of self awareness/Consciousness.

We are just like AI robots with bodies (hardware) and programming (soul/spirit) and thus are programmed to be conscious like the Manufacturer (God).

It's easy to comprehend except that you are bent on your struggle against reason to reject the possibility of a "God" (Programmer)


You seem not to appreciate the mechanics of the BBT. Gravitational force happens to be one of the weakest forces available in nature.

Can gravity exist without mass?
At the time just just before the BB radius of the hypothetical gravitational singleton is approximately zero. At times just after the BB even if extremely hot gases are produced, the inter-atomic distances will outweigh the effect of gravity.

Are you also saying that gravity suddenly paired electrons with the nucleus of atoms?
What does gases in a container do? Condense as a result of gravity!?!?
You over-praise the power of gravity.



The DNA is made up of six smaller molecules and these make three forms of DNA. Human beings are made up of 46 packets of DNA (46 chromosomes). There are 64 possible words from the DNA library and this make the 20 known amino acids.

I have offered a similar challenge. 26 alphabets, 10 numerals and all the special characters of the English keyboard.

The experimenter has infinite number of times to throw the "dice" (simulating the Billions of years atoms and molecules have to react with each other). I can make it even simpler: the experimenter has infinite numbers of character set to throw at the same time.

We want the character to form the simplest code eg "Hello World!"

Is this possible?

DNA are collections of molecules (amino acids) that carry information and instructions: is that not a code?


Ok!
Fill in the GAP to conform to the characteristics of the Prime Mover.
1. Infinite regression is impossible (there must be an Original Prime Mover)
2. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a constant (for it wouldn't be able to initiate a change)
3. The Original Prime Mover cannot be subject to the prevailing laws of the universe (for the Prime Mover must exist before the BB)
4. The Original Prime Mover cannot be a THING (for the BB require a constraining Force else the laws of thermodynamics would be violated)
5. Consciousness is a well established fact (at least you know you are conscious). Consciousness cannot exist by random chance of chemicals reactions.

WHAT IS YOUR BEST SINGULAR DESCRIPTION OF SUCH A PRIME MOVER?

"I don't know" is a hypocritical answer for someone whose job on NL is to persuade others to desbelieve in such a personality!
Can't find the perfect face-palm for this comment LOL

Clearly someone wasn't paying attention in Logic class. Let us do a fallacy count:
1> God of the Gaps fallacy? Check!
2> Non-sequitur fallacy? Check!
3> Confirmation bias? Check!
4> Argumentum ad Ignorantiam? Check!

Need I go on? Need I say more? Need I keep stressing myself out arguing against an assertion that is Dead On Arrival (DOA) apparently unbeknownst to the proponent?

As for detecting god(s) and/or testing the god(s) hypothesis,

"No one is claiming that science is infallible or that it hasn't been wrong in the past. Science is just a method for making models based on available data. It's only as good as the data and the model-maker. That said, it's demonstrably the best system humans have ever had for discovering truths about our universe."
-Re: My Argument For God's Existence by XxSabrinaxX(f): 10:55pm on Jan 22

Also, check out my atheist prayer thread where I, Martinez39 and budaatum discussed about reliable processes for establishing base reality.


An analogy is a perfect way of presenting or explaining a new phenomenon using already established knowledge. In that sense, it is perfectly logical and sensible.
1. Do you have an objection to the fact that the DNA is a library of codes?
Let me start here by saying that you are committing a fallacy of equivocation combined with non-sequiturs! A CODE is a variation of a particular language. DNA is a biological machine, the structure of which can be represented by A CODE. Our DNA evolved with a great deal of variance in our species, and even more so compared to our ancestors. Even if there was a designer, unless you completely discount evolution, and common descent in particular, the DNA and RNA of contemporary living things is an example of what unguided natural processes can produce, mistakes and all.

In short, your argument has no supporting evidence, because IF you understand and accept evolution, then DNA isn't evidence for a designer, just an example of what can happen naturally (more on this below). IF you don't accept evolution, then a quick scroll through all of the known genetic conditions and inherited diseases should make it obvious that the alleged Intelligent Designer doesn't live up to the title! There is so much "junk" DNA code that does absolutely nothing. Mutations happen with alarming frequency and the vast majority of them are either harmful or negligible. Is the Almighty First Cause / Source not finished or did he just f*ck up 6,000 years ago and hasn't gotten the formula right? Is he (a) Lazy OR (b)Plain Stupid?

I mean, retardation, cancer, amelia.... LOL, your god must really suck at coding!

TLDR; Computer code is a human construct and DNA is naturally occuring (False Analogy). There is no "code" in DNA. Like i said earlier, this is an equivocation fallacy. When the word "code" is used, it is not used with similar meaning as a morse code, a biblical code, or a secret code. DNA is chemical interactions. You assert that DNA is not naturally existing? Can you prove your assertion?

. Do you think given an unlimited number of trials (of throwing alphanumerics on the ground) with the 26 letters and numerals a computer code can write itself?
It's like what I said above: the creation of DNA information can be explained by nature viz the evolutionary process. Code sequences that favour survival tend to survive (a gain of useful information) and code sequences that hinder survival tend to vanish (a loss of misinformation) via mutations into new sequences and through random mixing of existing sequences at each new generation. Over many generations, useful information accumulates. Once again, this is IF you accept evolution. IF you don't, see above.

Also, information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement includes shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Unfortunately, the fact that you seem yourself to be conscious suggests that you aren't the only one who could be conscious.
The question to ask is how can a collection of "unconscious" atoms suddenly acquire "consciousness"?

Is consciousness just about chemicals acting on other chemicals?

If we are to project backwards, we must arrive at the FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS in the universe: as Christians, we call Him the SOURCE.

Do you think you that cannot unravel the mystery of your own Consciousness can dissect that of the SOURCE?

You worship the brain as if it is the giver of Consciousness neglecting the software that controls the brain and make it function. It's simply like exalting the CPU and Memory of a computer without referencing the SOFTWARE that make it function.

I submit that Consciousness isn't about chemicals interacting with atoms BUT the SOFTWARE that is written by the SOURCE Himself.

If I altered the chemistry of your brain, your consciousness would change in a predictable manner. Alzheimer patients and people suffering dementia change both in consciousness and in brain structure. The same goes for meditation, "prayer", and many other practices and/or drugs that can lead one to having "religious" experiences. Consciousness and self awareness are emergent properties of the brain. Damage the brain and you alter consciousness.

Chemical reactions can produce molecules: Secondary School Biology / Chemistry

"Chemical reactions occur when chemical bonds between atoms are formed or broken. The substances that go into a chemical reaction are called the reactants, and the substances produced at the end of the reaction are known as the products. An arrow is drawn between reactants and products to indicate the direction of the chemical reaction, though a chemical reaction is not always a "one-way street", as we'll explore further for the next section. For example, the reaction for the breakdown of hydrogen peroxide,
(\text {H}_{2}H2
H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript) into water and oxygen can be written as:
2\text {H}_{2}2H2
2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript\text {O}_{2}\text {(hydrogen peroxide)}O2
(hydrogen peroxide)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, h, y, d, r, o, g, e, n, space, p, e, r, o, x, i, d, e, right parenthesis\right arrow, right arrow 2\text {H}_{2}\text O\text {(water)}2H2
O(water)2, H, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O, left parenthesis, w, a, t, e, r, right parenthesis +\text {O}_{2}\text {(oxygen)}O2
(oxygen)O, start subscript, 2, end subscript, left parenthesis, o, x, y, g, e, n, right parenthesis
In this example, hydrogen peroxide is our reactant, and it gets broken down into water and oxygen, our products. The atoms that started out in hydrogen peroxide molecules are re-arranged to form water molecules (\text {H}_{2}\text OH2
OH, start subscript, 2, end subscript, O) and oxygen molecules (\text O_2O2
O, start subscript, 2, end subscript)."
When last did you read anything besides the bible?

Now let's try explaining consciousness with god:
1> How did God create the consciousness?
2> How is it "attached" to the person and the brain?
3> How does the body change consciousness if there isn't a physical connection?
4> If it's "spiritual", how does it interact with our reality?

I guess the most interesting question though, Mr. Shadeyinka, is that how hard could it possibly be for you to fathom that the fact of something's existence does not prove that it necessarily came into existence via a particular process? Tentatively, it's existence could simply be a necessity, a non-contigent fact, like the existence of existence is! Your unending assertion that consciousness springs up from either GOD or NOTHING is a false dichotomy fallacy.
The bitter pill of truth, which is obviously so painful for even you to swallow, is that even if today, you demonstrated successfully that a person remains conscious after brain death, you haven't demonstrated a god existing anymore than you have demonstrated the Flying Spaghetti Monster or my Blue Universe-creating Pixies!


It's either you are communicating with demons or you don't even believe yourself of what you've just written.
I'm not sure if I should be amused or impressed by this final comment of yours. It's quite fascinating that you actually have the capacity to reject assertions based on how ludicrous they may sound. The only question is, how will you ever know, hmm? Extraordinary claims will ALWAYS require extraordinary evidence. Pulling all sorts of assertions from your rear ("God iS ImMaTeRiAl!", "iNfInIte ReGrEsS iS iMpOsSiBlE!" etc) and flinging all and sundry onto the wall hoping they will stick without question or criticsm won't help you. I'm no stranger to these arguments. You do not bring anything unique or new to the table, you are just spouting catchphrases and words you hope will impress people. This has always been your M.O., Mr. Shadeyinka.

Anyways, Yahweh appeared to me again this time as a condom on my nightstand. He told to inform you that your arguments are piss poor and wrong as ever. He has asked me to tell you that this argument be ended. Personally, i'm already infinitely bored with all these presuppositional fantasy drivel that apologists keep pushing cause they read nothing other than the Buybull!

Wow! The balloon d'or for patience and perseverance in the face of the immense bullshit from religious simpletons goes to Sabrina.

No matter what you say, they will not be reasonable.

skywalker240:
Martinez39 come and sprinkle the red capsules allover this thread, it reeks of confusion and bitchiness.

There is nothing to write again. Ubunja's impact is really extensive.

Boys, don't forget to take your daily red pills. No amount is ever enough and it is never out of stock.