₦airaland Forum

Second and third car:
Peugeot 306
Audi A4

Here are the cars I owned (not original pics). Mind you, there are so many because quite a few were company cars. The models are accurate, the colors not.

First car: Opel Kadett automatic. Drank fuel like it was nothing

@ ono
I really don't like to lecture and I don't see the point anyway. Divorce is bad in the sense that two people that got married, that were once in love, come in a position where they no longer want to maintain that marriage. It's always a sad thing when that happens.
More in general, there are very few things that I would consider absolutely bad or good. Those things depend on the context and circumstances. Even killing can be morally justified in some cases. Anyway, your reasoning and claims aply to those following your specific interpretation of Christianity but need not to apply to others. I respect the fortitude of your convictions though. As long as you don't want to force or pressure others into it, all is well

I am married and I broadly agree with chinani's positions, thumbs up from an experienced, married man

@ aannese
Shannon provided the sources for her statements, you have just said that children of gay parents are more likely to become gay without adding any sources or other supporting material for your statement.

@ simmy
Shannon did my homework
I certainly do not deny that sexual behaviour is for the most part learned. Sexual orientation though does not seem to be a learned behaviour. It is very likely that sexual orientation is coded in the genome, but that it's expression is modulated by the feedback from developmental processes prior to birth (as is the case with a lot of our traits)

Nightrider you are the one making claims about the psychological damages that children of gay marriage suffer. If you judge people and situations the way you do, the least you can do is substantiate your claims.

Nightrider, can you bring any evidence that children of a same sex household are psychologically damaged at all and if so, that there is a significant difference between them and children of straight families.? You seem to be talking without much regard to evidence.

4get_me, thank you for bringing the debate back to the level it is supposed to be carried out at. I will reply to your post tomorrow.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg262474#msg262474 date=1143723850]

nferyn:
Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

There you have it nferyn - you have just arrived at the very thing you claim to deny: atheism proper comes to the conclusion that "God does not exist", as you have clearly stated. So, where do you begin to pull strings with all that strawman revisionist definition about agnostic atheism? Just as you argued above in one of your references, "the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist". . . do I take it you fall into this category?[/quote]I was actually hoping you would respond to that You forgot to embolden for all intents and purposes, obviously you rather ignore the parts that don't suit our purposes.
I clearly and explicitely said that I consider the non-existence of God a reasonable [/b]working hypothesis. I will stand by that hypothesis, unless someone bring convincing evidence of the contrary. To date, [b]not a single theist has been able to do that.
Anyway, you continue in your relentless zeal of misrepresenting my positions and ignoring everything that does not support your case. This is a clear example of out-of-context quoting. What about the rest of the argument? Do you ingore that in your galant don quichotesque charge against the strawman of atheism?

Do you actually have a case for the existence of God that does not rely on unproved assertions?

God having needs and wants contradicts him being perfect.

I truly do not understand your position. Can you explain how you arrive at that label?

kasaliyaro:
@Nairaland users,
Let us remind ourselves that marriage is commanded by God; and whatever God ordains, He will surely maintain.

This only applies to those that believe in said God

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg222185#msg222185 date=1141079324]2. Now, that is precisely where the problem is - providing 'proof' for the atheistic claim. At best, an honest and rational thinker would say, "I do not know whether or not God exists", and he would not be required to prove his statement - for the simple reason that he has not made a categorical claim; he just does not know. This is closer to the agnostic, rather than to the atheistic, view about questions of the existence of God. On the other hand, when someone makes a categorical claim that "God does not exist", of obligation he ought to prove the legitimacy of that claim. He has made a claim that purports that he knows for a fact in the entire universe that God actually does not exist; and this kind of view takes center stage of acting like the atheist knows everything in the entire universe.[/quote]Once more, only some atheists make categorical claims about the existence of God(s), others do not. Theists are in the habit of making categorical claims about the universe based on flimsy evidence, at least the strong atheists have more evidence in their favor than the theists do.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg222185#msg222185 date=1141079324]It is sad that many atheists have come up with an escapist theory that someone cannot 'prove' a negative statement. Is that true in every field of learning - including science? Let's go back to the history of philosophy and science for an illustration:

Until the 5th century BC, many thinkers and philosophers, in speculating about the natural world,
were of the view that the earth was like a flat disk. Later, a few others came up and categorically
claimed that the earth was NOT flat. So, who was right? Notice that the views of the former were
speculations, and as far as we know, they had no experiential or experimental basis that confirmed
their position. But the refutation of those who claimed the opposite view were based on seeking to
provide proof for their claim. Explorers, voyagers, astronomers, and various others came up with a
plethora of 'evidence' for the contrary claim that the earth was in fact NOT flat. Today, we know better -
the earth is not flat but spherical or geoidal.

What does this go to show? It shows that the idea that negative statements need no attempted 'proof' is wrong.[/quote]Most of those that claimed the earth was spherical had astronomical observations as evidence for their claims. Many civilisations (among them the Maya and the Egyptians) had knowledge about the spherical nature of the earth. A lot of that knowledge was destroyed when God-fearing Christians decided to burn the Alexandrian library to the ground because it contained ungodly materials.
May I inform you that this is not really a negative statement, but a positive statement in a negative linguistically wrapping.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg222185#msg222185 date=1141079324]Therefore, the atheistic claim that 'God does not exist' requires more than refutation by statement or criticism - it requires the atheist to go beyond his mouth to his own experience in order to come up with a rational, experiential and experiemental proof or evidence that indeed God does not exist.[/quote]Once you start describing the properties of God, I will do just that, but it is really irrelevant, as it would only disprove your strawman.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg222185#msg222185 date=1141079324]However you look at it, the atheistic claim cannot be sustained - at least, not until the atheist himself is able to provide evidence for the non-existence of God. It is a weak excuse to say that a negative statement cannot be proven when stating it as categorically as the positive claim. If one cannot validate an opposite statement, he does not need to state it in the first place. In making an assertion that God does not exist, elbaron is required to provide evidence to that effect.

4gt_m.[/quote]On a purely philosophical level you might have a point here, but this is the same like claiming that he should prove that invisible unicorns that are undetectable by human machinery do not exist. This can only be done if the subject of study (God) is falsifiable, either in the realm of logic or through observation. Therefore, only if you make your God falsifiable in one way or another can we talk about him, but for all intents and purposes, unless someone brings evidence to the contrary, God does not exist.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=4284.msg261773#msg261773 date=1143680329]You gentlemen surprise me on this Forum. A labelling exercise??. . . only an ellaborate intellectual construction? Do you want us to go through the whole gamut of atheism all over again? Intellectuals don't talk the way you do.[/quote]You certainly have not gone through the gamut of atheism. You only took a dictionary definition of atheism, apparently claiming it to be the reference on atheism and then just went on ignoring the actual arguments brought forth. On top of that you accused me of revisionism in order strengthen your position and labelling mine as irrelevant. This debating technique is typical for Christian apologetics (e.g. C.S. Lewis) and misrepresents the diversity that exists among atheists. You are indeed putting up a strawman of atheism.

Have a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/atheism101.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/229175.htm
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/reference_books_2.htm

I will copy the first paragraph of the last link for further clarification:

If theism is the belief in the existence of God, then a-theism ought to mean "not theism" or "without theism." Actually, there is no notion of "denial" in the origin of the word, and the atheist who denies the existence of God is by far the rarest type of atheist — if he exists at all. Rather, the word atheism means to an atheist "lack of belief in the existence of a God or gods." An atheist is one who does not have a belief in God, or who is without a belief in God. The importance of these distinctions is that one cannot understand what one cannot define accurately. An atheist cannot deny the existence of that which he finds to be without meaning, namely the term God. In order to deny the existence of something, one must know what the term one is denying means.


Let me state it once more: atheism is simply the lack of God- belief. Atheism only deals with the belief [/i]in deities, not with knowledge about the existence of deities. I, as an agnostic atheist claim that even though I do not [i]believe [/i]in the existence of God, I can not achieve positive [i]knowledge [/i]about the (non-)existence of a deity, unless that deity is defined in such a way that it becomes falsifiable.

Maybe you can address the merit of the first mover argument as a basis for God belief, intelectuals should not use [i]ad hominem arguments, sir.

Jackie24:
That's the point. The idea is that God was always there, just because humans cannot understand it doesn't make it impossible. And I was not using it as proof that he does exist, you're only hearing what you want to hear. I said that unless you can explain everything, you cannot say there is no God because that is a big part of his purpose, the unexplainable.

If you want to call the cause of everything we cannot explain God, than that's well within your rights but that does not explain anything though, it's just a labelling exercise.
It is indeed logically impossible to disprove God, unless of course you give God properties that are comprehendable to us humans. Putting the God concept beyond human comprehension does not make him any more real though, it only makes him inscrutible and thus impossible to have a meaningful conversation about. In this context God is only an ellaborate intellectual construction to give purpose to that which does not have any purpose.

Jackie24:
To prove there is no God, we must first start with proving how everything happend and how everything works. We scientists can explain much but very little of what is out there to be explained, that is why we rely on the belief of God, because nothing could start without one.

And who then reated the creator? It's an easy cop out to put God at the start of everything. It's not because we currently do not have the answers or understanding that assuming the existence of God solves the riddle, it only puts the anwers one step further away.

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=2837.msg258750#msg258750 date=1143569343]I can't believe your son's eye-lashes are longer than mine. They are soo cute. And my mini-husband (your son), he's soo adorable. Aicha name's pretty, desert rose. Hmm rose, [/quote]Yes, it's amazing, isn't it? I would have shown Tom the picture in your profile to show who's got a crush on him, but what you put in right now is not appropriate

[quote author=hot-angel link=topic=2837.msg258750#msg258750 date=1143569343]her trads, nice. Do you own any nigerian atire nferyn?[/quote]Yes, but I will only wear it when I visit Nigeria, it's not reall appropriate for the Belgian climate

And 2 more of Tom and Aicha
Aicha is and arab name and it means desert rose

A few more pictures: Aicha eating and my wife and her siser

Thanks Chinani and Kimba for the kind words
To was not yet 6 on most of these picures, as for his muscles, it runs in my wife's family, he won't have to body build at all. Anyway, when Aicha will be a little older, I wil have to find drastic measures to keep the boys at bay the wahala already started and she's just in nursery school

chinani:
I just realized that I comended Nferyn for doing what's expected of him. What a world we live in today. . .

And what is this supposed to mean? I have a happy marriage, thank you. If you don't believe me, check out these threads:
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=2598.msg91683#msg91683
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-2837.0.html

Rottweiler:
There are different styles of cheating.
[SNIP]
Some cheat by masturbation (its cheating, you derive sexual pleasure without your wife, don't say its NOT)

I don't agree. I have a bigger sex drive than my wife and sometimes I masturbate. She knows it and doesn't mind. That's not cheating.

Never have and I truly hope I never will

I cannot believe what I'm reading here sometimes. Davidylan made a convincing case for the level of development found in Africa prior to colonisation. Anyway, the statement of t4cash:

t4cash:
BTW, The true story of Slave Trade is that Africans sold their brothers and the slaves' kin did nothing.

shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the trans-atlantic slave trade, as compared with the Muslim slave trade and systems of servitude existing within African nations.

It is important to notice that first the trans-atlantic slave trade and after that colonisation stopped that internal African societal development dead in it's tracks. Not only were completely unnatural boundaries created for the Africa nation states, but the complete system of government and education was almost a carbon copy of what was to be found in the colonisation nations.
A wester style liberal democracy only works if you have a large, educated and empowered middle class, exactly the thing the colonial masters wanted to stop developing in their colonies. That alone doomed the experiments after independence from the onset. Add to that the perverse effects of the cold war interventions and policies and the road to failed states was wide open.

t4cash, this

t4cash:
In fact I personally consider white people as inferior to blacks on an individual level, but corporately, it's another issue.

is just as bad a saying that whites are superior to blacks. Utter balony. There are no significant differences in intelligence between races (that is assuming that you een could measure intelligence adequately or that racial qualifications would be valid on biological grounds)

Best song ever:

Jacques Brel
NE ME QUITTE PAS
1959


Ne me quitte pas
Il faut oublier
Tout peut s'oublier
Qui s'enfuit déjà
Oublier le temps
Des malentendus
Et le temps perdu
A savoir comment
Oublier ces heures
Qui tuaient parfois
A coups de pourquoi
Le coeur du bonheur
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

Moi je t'offrirai
Des perles de pluie
Venues de pays
Où il ne pleut pas
Je creuserai la terre
Jusqu'après ma mort
Pour couvrir ton corps
D'or et de lumière
Je ferai un domaine
Où l'amour sera roi
Où l'amour sera loi
Où tu seras reine
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

Ne me quitte pas
Je t'inventerai
Des mots insensés
Que tu comprendras
Je te parlerai
De ces amants là
Qui ont vu deux fois
Leurs coeurs s'embraser
Je te raconterai
L'histoire de ce roi
Mort de n'avoir pas
Pu te rencontrer
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

On a vu souvent
Rejaillir le feu
D'un ancien volcan
Qu'on croyait trop vieux
Il est paraît-il
Des terres brûlées
Donnant plus de blé
Qu'un meilleur avril
Et quand vient le soir
Pour qu'un ciel flamboie
Le rouge et le noir
Ne s'épousent-ils pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

Ne me quitte pas
Je ne vais plus pleurer
Je ne vais plus parler
Je me cacherai là
A te regarder
Danser et sourire
Et à t'écouter
Chanter et puis rire
Laisse-moi devenir
L'ombre de ton ombre
L'ombre de ta main
L'ombre de ton chien
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

I cannot see in what way colonialism was a good thing. Colonialims was made possible by number of factors that left African societies in a severly weakened state, ready for exploitaton.
1. Colonialism would have been impossible without the legacy of the trans-atantic slave trade, which depopulated many African regions and made it very vulnerable to external domination
2. Colonialism in the tropical regions of Africa would would have been imposible without effective anti-malarial treatment. It's for a reason that West-Africa was called the white man's grave.
3. Colonialism would have been impossible without the internal European power struggles which led to a strong focus on the development of military technology. Generally speaking the majority o the African poplations were far better of before he first World War than the majorit of the population in Europe. The industrialisation in Europe and the US (2nd wave) needed the raw materials in Africa to sustain itself. The Maxim gun gave Europeans the edge in subjugating the African populations and imposing colonialism.

For al investments in educaton, infrastructure, etc, far more me was sucked out of Africa than ever came in. In Belgium, much of the monumental buildings were constructed with the profits from the ruber trade. These were built on te blood of the Congolese people and what did they get in return: 2 university graduates at indendence.

You just need to look at Japan to see that the good elements of European societies could be incorporated without colonialism. You only need to dig a little deeper to understand what a sham the so-called benefits of colonialism really were.

Choice.A made it a habit of his/hers to ignore the actual arguments put forth and instead focus on rhetorical tricks. It's quite useless to try to debate people that are consistently ignoring your arguments and misrepresenting your views. I've given up debating him/her