₦airaland Forum

I have a problem and it's kinda bugging me

So I just thought if maybe I'll come here to ask for suggestions
I'm 20 and fairly sexually active,but the problem is my dick

When it's becomes hard,it's unbelievably hard to the extent it's painful like I don't know what to do.
Even when I reach climax it still stays hard for like 30mins without calming,sometimes longer

I don't enjoy sex as much as I want to because it's painful for me
I know most people will judge or scoff but it's actually painful
Please matured answers only

Start a drop shipping business with shopify,Amazon FBA,Bitcoin mining,so many things

aisha1314:
Just follow your heart and do what makes you, and only you, happy. In life, as long as your actions don't hurt anyone, what people think about you or say about you doesn't matter and you should never allow it to bother you.

I don't care what people, even people in my family, think about me. I never have and I never will. Me when people give me unnecessary and unsolicited advice or try to force their beliefs on me, I just completely ignore them. I don't even bother to listen or respond and when I do respond I just tell them to mind their own business and butt out of mine.

Don't mind Nigerians and their stupid religiosity and morality. They're just a bunch of useless and senseless hypocrites, with that imaginary fictional thing they call god. That's one of the reasons why I decided to be an atheist.


What matters is your happiness and your happiness and satisfaction only. Remember, morality and religion are subjective. Don't allow anyone to force their moral and religious beliefs on you. Just do your own thing and be yourself.

Even me if I eventually decide to have children I'd rather have them with a partner or long term boyfriend than with a husband. People say I'm immoral for saying this but I couldn't care less. My life, my choice.

I'm really happy you created this thread. Once again congrats on your new baby.

Wow after writing this do you feel happy and accomplished eeh
Insulting people beliefs because you surround ur self with toxic mothefuckers that therefore means all theists are forcing

Look asshole let me enlighten you
1)Christians are actually the leading group in legalizing free speech and actions e.g gay marriages around,what have your so called atheist done......nothing
1)Martin Luther King,ghandi and Constantine aside from being freedom fighters what do they have in common,well They are theists.......all u atheist care about is say how religion ruins the world and shit but u atheist actually flick up the world

Serial killers atheist
Bad politicians atheist
Kidnappers atheist
The most famous genociders are atheist

So what's ur fucking point

Thebadpolitican:
Which oil red oil??

No my friend
Olive is preferable as it's as has less scent and due to the nature of olive can keep the ph level constant

IntelChief:
Ive been wondering, Why does smelly pvs* smells like rotten fish self? Why fish?
Scientists in the house, help out pls

Well it's really simple my friend

U see the vagina is moist and maintains a ph level slightly acidic,these two factors combined causes the vagina to be kind of a self cleaning organ,as unlike other organs u don't need to use soap to wash it(in fact doctors advice against using soap)u can just use water and rinse and ur ok..........................
But some girls are extra dirty and just don't wash the place altogether
Couple that with the menstrutral blood

And u have a vagina that has the ph level messed with,therefore making the once controlled microbial biome go out of order and this micro organisms are alike the once present in rotten fish.they break down the sweat and releases hydrogen sulphide(the gas responsible for the wretched odor)

Now how to fix it
Just wash the darn thing three times a day with a water mixed with oil at a ratio 1:2 and you'll noticed the smell disappear

Note:never wash ur pussy with soap

The existence of God has been debated for as long as religion exists and has caused people to clash heads for long.
But......... Dropping all hypothesis and all
Can you reliably prove Our all powerful father exists
can you mathematically prove God??

Albeit Eistein states that:
"Mathematics is the language of God"
Can we therefore use mathematics to prove the existence of God

Well...... Yes we can

If u did mathematics in sec school you should be familiar with probability

Probability can be defined as the odds an event has to happen
It can also be defined as the total amount of probable events that can happen in a total amount of time

Does God exist? On the surface, this may appear to be a rather straightforward (not to say easy) question. But the disagreement between those who answer “yes” and those who answer “no” is not straightforward at all. It is, rather, “one of those fundamental disagreements that extends to how the disagreement is to be characterized,” as the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre once observed. Atheists and theists not only disagree about whether God exists; they also disagree about what it means to disagree about whether God exists.

This disagreement over disagreement is at its most obvious when it comes to popular debates about science and religion. Against those who profess belief in God, there are those who profess that modern science renders such belief irrational. According to these “scientific atheists,” as we might call them, the existence of God is a hypothesis of the same kind as the hypotheses of natural science, and thus may be tested empirically in the same way that we test other such hypotheses. Unsurprisingly, the “God hypothesis” fails such tests, and so scientific atheists conclude that the hypothesis is false and that belief in God is unwarranted and irrational.

Implicit here is a misunderstanding of what is at issue in the debate over God’s existence. For theists, God is not the kind of thing that could be tested by the methods of natural science. The reason is that God is not a part of the observable universe, but rather the transcendent cause of the universe. So the inability of modern science to confirm God’s existence does not show that belief in God is unwarranted or irrational; but only that modern science does not have a monopoly on warranted rational belief about what exists.

A metaphysically courageous atheist might try a more direct line of attack. He might acknowledge that God is not understood by theists to be a part of the physical universe and therefore is not the kind of thing that could be observed. Nevertheless, he might maintain that it is not rational to believe in what is not observable. Therefore, if by “God” we mean something inherently unobservable, then belief in him is inherently irrational. It is not simply that the “God hypothesis” fails an empirical test; it fails even to be a meaningful hypothesis. Such an argument, if successful, would have the benefit (from the atheist’s point of view) of ruling out not only belief in God but also belief in a host of other things that many atheists find suspect, from minds to objective moral values.

Unfortunately, for the scientific-atheist, this argument rules out far too many things. For if it is sound, not only gods, minds, and morals, but all non-observable objects must go by the board. This would leave no room for mathematical objects like numbers, sets and functions or even for theoretical objects like electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. Yet, such objects, though not directly observable, are necessary for modern science. This argument against theism, therefore, has the drawback of yoking atheism to a disputable metaphysical thesis, one that not even many scientific atheists would want to accept.

The indispensability of theoretical and mathematical objects for modern science is what led the eminent logician and philosopher Willard Van Orman Quine to include such non-observable objects in his otherwise empiricist philosophy. Unlike our less sophisticated scientific atheist, Quine was not dogmatic about ontology (the philosophy of what exists). Though he was an empiricist, he allowed for the existence of theoretical objects that are not directly observable, such as electrons, neutrinos, and quarks, as well as “abstract” objects such as numbers, sets, and functions. Might the scientific atheist thus find in Quine’s brand of empiricism a more reasonable and promising line of argument against theism? Let us see how far it can take him.

If we want to know what there is, Quine said, we should begin by asking what our leading scientific theories say there is. If we want to know about physical objects, we should look to our best theories of natural science, such as quantum physics or molecular biology; if we want to know about mathematical objects, we should look to our best theories of mathematics, such as set theory and algebraic topology. All of these theories make (or at least appear to make) ontological claims—for example, about the existence of elementary particles and quantum fields or cellular molecules and RNA strands or denumerable and non-denumerable sets or manifolds and groups. According to Quine, we can figure out what a theory says there is by translating its statements about such items into the language of symbolic logic.

For instance, the statement “Some swans are white” may be translated into logic as follows: “∃x(Sx & Wx)” or “There is an x such that x is a swan and x is white.” That statement is true so long as there is at least one white swan. Similarly, the statement “All swans are white” may be translated as “∀x(Sx → Wx)” or “For all x, if x is a swan, then x is white.” This statement is true so long as there are no non-white swans. The symbols “∃x” and “∀x” are called “quantifiers,” and we say that they “quantify over” objects, whether swans, electrons, or numbers. Quine shows how an entire theory may be so rendered or “regimented” into formal logic using quantifiers. And he argues that we can determine what objects a theory says there are by seeing what objects it quantifies over.

For instance, it might appear as though our theory about swans is committed not only to the existence of swans but also to the existence of “whiteness,” the property of being white. But, according to Quine, this is only apparent. Notice that the logical versions of our statements quantify only over swans, not over attributes of swans (like being white). Consider the statement “∃x(Sx & Wx)” or “There is an x, such that x is a swan and x is white.” The value of the variable “x” here is an object—a swan. “White,” by contrast, appears only as a predicate, “W.” A “predicate” is not an object but rather tells us something about an object, in this case that the object x is white. (In the jargon of logic, the predicate W is a “function,” and Wx means that x is included in the class of white objects.) This shows how, through logical analysis, we may “eliminate” ontological baggage, so that some of what looked like ontological claims turn out not to be.

Of course, a theory’s references to objects are not always eliminable in this way. The statement “Some swans are white,” for instance, cannot be translated into logic without quantification over swans and still come out true. Or consider one of Quine’s own examples. Classical mathematics says there are prime numbers greater than one million. This may be rendered as ∃x((x is prime) & (x > 1,000,000)). There is no way to preserve the truth of this statement—or other similar statements—without quantification over numbers. We may thus conclude that classical mathematics is committed to the existence of numbers. And numbers, of course, are not physical objects, but abstract ones. So classical mathematics is committed to the existence of abstract objects.

Interpreting ontological commitments in this way is valuable, Quine thought, because it allows us to reframe questions about ontology in terms of questions about language. Rather than arguing about what there is, we can first clarify what our theories say there is. And in this way, our “basic controversy over ontology can be translated upward into a semantical controversy about words and what to do with them.” This is what Quine called “semantic ascent”—or “withdrawing to a semantic plane.”

Semantic ascent does not mean that ontology is merely a matter of language. For asking what there is according to some theory is not the same as asking what there actually is. To say that classical mathematics is committed to the existence of numbers is not the same thing as saying numbers truly exist. As Quine put it, we use this logical analysis “not in order to know what there is, but in order to know what a given remark or doctrine, ours or someone else’s, says there is.” How, then, are we to decide what actually exists?

Quine’s answer is, once again: Look to our best scientific theories. Say our best physical theory is ontologically committed (in the above sense) to electrons, neutrinos, and quarks. Then so should we be. If our best theory of mathematics says there are numbers, then we should believe in numbers. But must we accept the existence of all the objects to which all our best scientific theories are committed? And, if not, how do we decide? Electrons, neutrinos, and quarks might seem like reasonable enough objects to count within our ontology. So too might cellular molecules and RNA strands. But what about non-denumerably infinite sets or algebraic manifolds?

According to Quine, there is ample room for reasonable disagreement here. Say you have a “constructivist” view of mathematical proof. In that case, you may have no problem with classical mathematics, but reject the higher infinities of Cantor’s set theory. Or perhaps you’re a “nominalist,” meaning that you believe only in the existence of “particulars.” In that case, your ontology will not accommodate abstract objects such as numbers and sets. The appeal of “semantic ascent,” according to Quine, is not that it resolves all ontological disputes. Its appeal, rather, is that it “carries the discussion into a domain where both parties are better agreed on the objects . . . and on the main terms concerning them.” How so?

The idea is that Quine’s approach at least allows all parties to agree on what it means to have an ontology. What’s more, we are in a position to assess the merits and demerits of rival ontologies by considering their broader implications, in particular what theories they allow us to hold or preclude us from holding. For instance, if your ontology requires you to reject higher infinities, then you must also reject whole swaths of modern mathematics. If you forswear belief in mathematical objects, then you cannot accept most of mathematics or much of natural science. The argument then becomes whether these ontologies, whatever their merits, are worth the price of admission. In this way, semantic ascent allows us to find common ground from which to “apprais[e] the ontological commitments of one or another of our theories.”

In seeking to reframe ontological questions in terms of questions of language, Quine did not hope to eliminate metaphysics through the logical analysis of language. Such was the goal of Quine’s teacher and friend Rudolf Carnap. Quine rejected as futile all attempts to draw a firm boundary between statements that are purely empirical (and thus “meaningful”) and statements that are metaphysical (and thus “meaningless”). Our best theories are committed to the existence of all manner of extra-empirical objects. In this sense, as Quine provocatively put it, “the physical objects [of modern science] and the gods [of Homer] differ only in degree and not in kind.”

He did not mean that there is no difference: “Let me interject that for my part I do, qua lay physicist, believe in physical objects and not in Homer’s gods; and I consider it a scientific error to believe otherwise.” Yet, Quine’s reason for rejecting Homer’s gods is pragmatic rather than dogmatic: Our leading scientific theories are not committed to their existence, and so we can get by without them. We cannot, however, get by without elementary particles or mathematical sets. So we ought to accept those. But elementary particles or mathematical sets are no less metaphysical than Homer’s gods. “The quality of myth . . . is relative.”

When it comes to the question of what ontology to adopt, Quine urged “tolerance and an experimental spirit.” Sometimes multiplying ontological commitments contributes to overall simplicity and is therefore perfectly defensible. Such is the case, Quine thought, for abstract objects like mathematical sets, which might offend against certain ontological scruples, such as those of the nominalist, but nevertheless contribute to the simplification of scientific theory. If, for whatever reason, it proved necessary or efficacious for scientific theory to reinsert the gods of Homer alongside mathematical sets, so be it. Until such time, however, we have no reasons to believe in Homer’s gods and good reasons not to.

https://churchlifejournal.nd.edu/articles/the-hole-in-atheist-arguments-about-what-exists/

99% of all nairaland guys are broke motherfuckers

Kobojunkie:
Scriptural definition of the word faith has to do with strict adherence to the terms and conditions of what is God's Law. God is a faithful God meaning He does not bend His Law nor break His agreement even when men do.

So your assertion does not make sense.

"Faith is the substance of things of things not seen,and the beliefs of things hoped for" the bible literally said this
So...........
Since God sees everything and knows everything he doesn't have faith

Well I was pondering the nature of our existence when it hits me
"GOD IS AN ATHEIST!!!?"

Wait here me out...............
Since faith is the belief not based on fact and God knows everything therefore he has no faith,
And since he's the highest power,there's no power above him
Therefore making God an atheist
Wow isn't that crazy

Death to simps

titusmichael27:
The field is wide, and is ready for harvest. The Lord is looking for people like you and I, you equally can test this and see for yourself, I've heard and I've seen it happening to people, even a mad man preached the Gospel and many people were so touched. This work is for all of us, and you're part of it.

Please don't waste ur time with these people called atheist
They're stupid but think there are smart

Ubanz:
An occultist told you about his riches , meanwhile na bus home dey enter.
Okayoo.

So some one will use car or jeep to go everywhere
Abi if shey u dey use your car dey go everywhere way u wan go

Madas1986:
if you act film your movies will sell.One funny thing about Christianity is always Super Story.

Hey donkey list the basis of atheism I'll wait

Most of u here are just trolls and not actual atheist
U come here to talk trash and then in the real world claim to either be a Christian or a Muslim
Why don't u guys drop ur location let's send u guys to the afterlife to go see if God exists or not

hopefulLandlord:
Tell your god whom you claim exists, is everywhere and knows all things to tell you my location. I'm sure something social engineering can accomplish with little difficulty shouldn't be so hard for your god to do

I'll make sure to enjoy the blood gush out of ur skull as I crack it open like an egg with a stone

I ask again drop ur location
And stop blabbing trash

hopefulLandlord:
Tell your god whom you claim exists, is everywhere and knows all things to tell you my location. I'm sure something social engineering can accomplish with little difficulty shouldn't be so hard for your god to do

May God forgive ur soul

Also it's God with a"G"
Why should I ask him,when I can ask u

hopefulLandlord:
Nonsense!

Christianity is a religion built on lies so these Christians have to lie to maintain the illusion.

All these testimonies that sound like dreams make me laugh. 60M, 120M, paper, cultist lol

Hey donkey
Why don't u guys go challenge Muslims or occultist
Why come online blabbing trash
Drop ur location let's help u book a trip to the afterlife to see for ur self

Workch:
Does Flying Spaghetti Monster exist like every other gods?

Answer the question

Is the earth flat as some u atheist believe

Falseprofet2:
Wise words my friend
Muslims and Christians should deeply read this and learn

And the number of people ur science has cured..................ooh my God still zero

MufasaLion:
God of men going to deceive as usual. Religion is the opium of the poor.

List atheist that are billionaires/millionaires I'll wait

Workch:
Really, the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the invisible pink unicorn also exist?

Why don't u guys come outside in the open and embrace ur atheism

Rather than staying behind a screen�

Workch:
What would you do if he doesn’t but stop?
You will tell you non-existent god to kill him?

Ok

kingxsamz:
Your initial post on this thread has no substance but you're asking atheists to come at you. Come at you and do what? Lmao.

Ok mate

Maynman:
You’ve not stepped out of Nigeria before, you just shamelessly lying and you’ve been exposed!

“I'll be in school during December where practically all universities are closing”
Are they no more “practically” closing?

Stop chatting me
Last warning

Maynman:
You’ve not stepped out of Nigeria before, you just shamelessly lying and you’ve been exposed!

Ooh really??
Good to know
Well bye

I'm gonna stop replying u for real this time
Been a long flight

Maynman:
Bwahahahah, so the school is not closes again?

All courses in the university use the same timeline, they begin, end and start exams the same time.
You are a shameless liar like your yahweh
I doubt you’ve gone to a university before

https://www.anu.edu.au/students/program-administration/calendar/month

Oo oh really
Ooh my God
Ur literally lecturing me on my own univeristy

Maynman:
Werey, koni dafun eee.
Shameless liar!!!!

I am a lair like my Yahweh
Anything u wanna add idiot??

Maynman:
That’s what you are worth, jewish slave.
Your father is a worthless jewish slave

I'm a slave thank u

But u are worst than a slave
So does that say for all courses
Engineering
Medicine
And for all levels

Maynman:
Shameless Dunce, “all schools are practically closed right”

So that applies to all courses right??
Mmmmmh
University is secondary school

Maynman:
Your father is a worthless slave!

Oya nau olori buruku

Maynman:
Your father is a worthless slave!

Cmon I wanna see how a non student can get hold of a university's calendar

Maynman:
Your father is a worthless slave!

U love using slave a lot
Well it's bcus ur one
And no he's not
Ur father is������