₦airaland Forum

Apart from the location consideration, there are a few other reasons why real estate is probably the best, safest investment you can do in Nigeria:
* clean-up of the banking sector makes the banks captalisation higher and allows the banks to present longer term deals, more specifically offerering mortages to more people
* a growing population and move to the cities adds extra pressure on the housing market
* availability of mortages will dramatically increase the prices of residential real-estate

I guess now is the time to enter the market as mortages are not easy to obtain, yet and the pressure from the the increased demand has not yet manifested itself.

@ owo2390
Maybe you should study some astronomy to understand the small odds that we will ever encounter intelligent life outer space

I must say I'm really scared

Anyway. There is a serious possibility that aliens do really exist, but taken into consideration the vastness of space, the short lifespan of species and the low probability of developing intelligent life, even on the many planets that probably do have life, it is highly unlikely that we will ever contact aliens.

goodguy:
I admit I know nothing about history. But at least, I know a little about some things that happened in the past. Which of my posts are you attacking by the way?

Goodguy, how can I attack somebody I like

I just got a new old book from Amazon to dive in the history of my wife's people: A Short History of Benin [/i]by[i] J.U. Egharevba. I just like to understand the history and traditions of half of my family. I am very interested in my historical roots, as it gives me an insight into the character of the people (please understand this in the loosest possible terms, I don't want to stereotype)

It's hard for me to understand that you so easily forget about your own roots and use the stereotypical language of the colonisator to depict your own history. Those that don't know their history are bound to repeat the mistakes from the past.

owo2390:
I believe in Aliens and they are out there

... to get you ... yes YOu
Can't run, can't hide

Goodguy,

I can't understand that you say such things. Do you realy believe the propaganda used in the 19th century by the western powers when they came to civilise Africa? You have some catching up on your own history.

DBest:
@nferyn, I quite agree with you on the issue of diversity of society and the possibility of atheism being a norm in some societies, however in most societies, an atheist is regarded as strange. Hence it takes only a man with courage or someone who has had some terrible experiences that made him realise his foolishness (rightly or wrongly) as to have believed in a supreme being.

That depends on how ab-normal atheism is in a given society. In most of western Europe, it's a no-brainer. In Nigeria, it definately takes courage to openly express your atheism.
My parents for example turned to atheism after extremely bad experiences with the church in the then still very Catholic Belgium. For me ont the other hand, it was the default position. That's why I find it so weird that so many intelligent people still believe in a supreme being. Logically, there is no reason to do so. There must be a very strong emotional driver (or strong peer pressure)

DBest:
Well, the atheists I know take charge of there life (by this I didn't mean positively only, some resort to all sorts of moral and social vices while others become go-getters).

Atheists are no different from other people in society. Atheism is just an absence of god belief.
I personally take a strong humanist stance. I place human dignity very high in my ethical code. I am also strongly utilitarian in my approach to ethical problems and believe in situational ethics. That doesn't directly follow out of my atheism, though.

I gave my wife Poison by Christian Dior. It changes something in my brain oh and she likes it too

I do find it interesting... a non representative sample for my personal sociological interests. I should formalise the whole thing, though

@ alienated
Did you choose that username yourself or was it implanted in your brain during your alien abduction

@ chrisd
We should go to a pub someday when I'm over in London

I'm not saying christians cannot be intellectuals. Their belief however is a deliberate suspension of disbelief that they cannot possibly intellectually justify

@ goodguy
We're obviously occupying different realms of reality and are unable to communicate. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense to me. I hope you're happy with what you claim to be your supernatural encounters. To me this is just on equal footing as children talking about the monsters the've seen under their bed.

chrisd:
Are we talking in the realm of philosophy or science here. If it is within science there is no clear cut division, we can never manage to have the answer. I thought you were for abortion. Maybe we are not understanding each other. In many aspect I am in agreement with your ideas but it's not that simple.

I don't think anyone sis really [b]for [/b]abortion. I'm in favor of keeping abortion legal under specific conditions.
You're right, ethical problems can never be solved by science. Science can only inform you about the facts and prevent the debate from turning into an emotional contest.

You should always look at the interests of all parties involved. In case of a woman possibly undergoing an abortion these are:
* the woman
* society
* the fetus (if it reached personhood already)

Once a fetus is sentient, it is to be considered a person and in that case, abortion is killing a person. Only very serious circumstances could justify such an action (e.g. the life of the woman is in danger if she carries the fetus to term)

chrisd:
Maturity, I don't know about that, there have been the greatest philosophers and scientists of all time being atheists and that did not make them wrong either.

I was just saying that lack of intellectual maturity can drive one to a belief in the supernatural, not that a lack of intellectual maturity drives one to an atheist position, on the contrary.

@ debanjee
Chill It is I that wasn't clear enough
I really didn't mean to say that you were definitely speaking with a thick Nigerian accent. My wife did when she just came to Belgium and I was just introducing a possible cause for them not understanding you

As a matter of fact, it is very hard to appreciate Brussels if you don't live there. I studied in Brussels and stayed there for 4 more years afterward. I didn't even know Brussels all that well when I just finished my studies.

chrisd:
Perhaps they might see religous people acting like fundamentalists. I think spiritual persons can learn from natural men

If you're not socialised in a theistic environment, theism just doesn't make any sense, it has very little to with fundamentalists.

Belief in the supernatural can, in my opinion have 3 sources:
* one is socialised in a society where belief in the supernatural is prevalent and thus accomodates the norms of that society
* one does not have the intellectual maturity to think things through
* one uses the supernatural as a sedative for the hardships society lays on them and ignores contradictory evidence

DBest:
[SNIP]
An atheist is just someone who, standing outside the norm of the society, has decided to examine critically the possibilities of the existence of a supreme being and came to the conculsion that "Life is a chain of events linked together by actions and reactions[i][/i]" and whatever decisions we take and the consequent outcome is certainly not governed by any supreme being.

This depends on what society you talk about. In Western Europe, atheism is certainly not outside the norm of society. Depending on the social group you belong to, atheism can even be the default position (e.g. my case)

DBest:
He therefore takes charge of his life, believing only in one thing - HIMSELF.

This is not true. How do you come to that conclusion?

loco:
@nferyn

PHILOSOPHY means the understanding of reality. It has two aspects: first, the understanding, and second, the reality.

The principle of atheistic philosophy is: what is capable of verification and necessary for the individual should be tested and known; what is incapable of verification or unnecessary for the present need, should be respected as an opinion. To respect an opinion is not to accept it as a truth; it is a social norm to enable the growth of knowledge. Unless the free flow of opinions is permitted, while recognising them only as opinions, we lose the benefit of imagination. The danger is not in respecting an opinion but it is in mistaking it for a truth. Atheism, therefore, adopts the scientific method for acquiring knowledge. It promotes understanding through verification wherever possible and through respect for opinion wherever necessary.

I definitely can find myself in that position.
Atheism does not necessarily imply a specific philosophy though. I know atheist that just haven't given the source of their knowledge a second thought. They just lack the belief in a supreme being. I even know some atheists (my aunt is one of them) that believe in the supernatural - that's a weird combination

chrisd:
It's the way things are. We cannot change that. Racism or not, everyone does what's best for himself. But perhaps the best result comes when each one of us does the best for himself and others. We have to say that the decision upon which Abortion, Euthanasia etc are ok to do rests on our decision to make it legal, that's all. What I don't like is trying to use arguments to make it look nice. If some culture decides that it wants abortion before 10 weeks or 14, whatever, then it was her decision. But if you ask questions on a scientific aspect, one must expect an answer that one does not like. Abortion can be done without justification if we want to be true to ourselves.

I really don't understand the foundations of your position.
My arguments have nothing to do with making it look nice. The criterium of sentience allows one to make a clear cut decision about when one is killing a human being, a person, and when one is destroying a lump of cells. The ethical problem arises after sentience begins (as I said, most higher mammals have some sort of sentience). That's why I am personally against the US legislation regarding abortion. It's a free for all position.

debanjee:
Been to Brussels

They speak Flemish, French and German i think ( hardly any English but there are some Irish pubs . Most people who speak English there you'll meet work for NATO or the European union)

You've encountered a bad sample, I guess. Most people do speak english, but they will have trouble understanding you if you speak with a thick Nigerian accent. Flemish people are usually better at languages and as Brussels is majoritary French, you probably met the wrong people.
The biggest hurdle immigrants have to overcome when learning Dutch is that most people will automatically switch to English when they hear you're not speaking Dutch fluently - makes it harder to learn the language.

debanjee:
Brussels wasn't that great but was still some fun though. Pretty neat city- although i hear it has its ghettos too. nice buildings. Get to see the European quarters , royal quarters etc

It takes years to get to know the fun parts of Brussels. Belgium is very bad at self-promotion. Those ghetto's aren't really ghettos as you'd see them in France, there's much more of a social mix. Doesn't mean that those quarters don't have their problems, but I've lived in one of these neigbourhoods for two years and never had any problems, never been mugged and only been harassed once. Belgium is among the safest places on earth. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

debanjee:
Not much else I'm afraid . I hear Antwerp is a great place though

Cultural life (clubbing, pubs, concerts, ...) in Antwerp is off the chain. If you're young, you'll certainly enjoy Antwerp. Most Nigerians in Belgium reside in Antwerp.

jacq:
How is life for a black woman in belgium @ nferyn ?

It won't be easy. Immigration is fairly recent in Belgium. The attitudes are changing though. Your knowledge of the language is very important.

jacq:
i heard belgium has the best educational system in the world is that true ?

Maybe not the best, but certainly one of the best. Flanders (not the whole of Belgium) always ranks in the top 10 of OECD classifications and usually in the top 5.

jacq:
if i could get a scholarship i will like to go to belgium to study nursing.

This is probably one of the few jobs they would encourage immigration for. Do not forget that in Belgium, language is extremely important. If you're in the north, better speak Dutch, if you're in the south, better speak French. Flemish people are very touchy when it comes to language - and I know I'm Flemish

jacq:
is the language difficult to understand or speak ?

So they say, but if you want to learn, you'll have a lot of free help and support

nicetohave:
nferyn you and many of the contributors here have read a lot to some extent about evolution, how do you validate what they present yo you? have you read any literature on God, is workings (we are not even mentioning the bible here which is the ultimate directory) written by many who have experienced him and his workings and who have likewise documented same? i have made references to you but you have not read, i believe-----if indeed you have in anyway done anything to validate the works of evolution, have you done any in regards to the existence of God?

I have read the Bible and quite some Church history. The Bible is very confusing, contradictory and hard to read. Do I need to read more? To accomplish what exactly? What will I find? Can you not summarise the points made, so that I can determine whether or not it is worth investing my limited time?

goodguy:
We make sense out of this world through our senses because we're humans. But when things that have to do with the supernatural are involved, our senses play little or no roles.

So you agree with me that all talk regarding the supernatural is just speculation and that in fact, you cannot really say anything about it?

goodguy:
What I mean is that you are explaining things based on your human nature.

I can obviously only work within the limitations that I have as a human being. I will never see through sound as a bat does.

goodguy:
The fact that some things cannot be explained naturally is one reason to believe there's actually a God somewhere. I wouldn't call that "inserting God by default" because so many people have actually felt God one way or the other.

They have felt something and, because of their past experiences, they call that something God. It is still not very substantial and remains a case of inserting God by default. They do not look for other explanations of that feeling.

Scientifically race is a useless concept. The genetic diversity in the human race is very low and very recent. The genetic diversity in all our 'races' of domestic cattle is far greater than that among humans, even within one breed of cattle.
The larges genetic diversity can be found in Africa. The genetic differences between black Africans are larges than between all other races combined. This indicates that the Out of Africa theory is correct: all humans come originally from Africa.

As the genetic diversity within a population (e.g. Black Africans) is far greater than that between populations (e.g. Europeans and South-East Asians), Race is a marker for nothing whatsoever. We should all get rid of this stupid concept of race, it's divisive and it's consequences are evil.

For goodness sake, get rid of your literal interpretation of Genesis, it's just an allegory.

PS: It's not because race has no biological significance, that it is not real on a sociological level, but that's only because people perceive it to be real.

chrisd:
It's ok for me if you do not want it or care for it, but why destroy it. That's what we are good at, destroying things.

As long as a life form is not sentient, it is nothing but a lump of cells. I value a living adult chimpansee more than a 3 week old embryo.
To put it in extreme terms: speciesm is just another form of racism.

chrisd:
That is of type homo, noone can argue about that. People try to make others think that a person is not always a person. The distinction is already made as soon as the type is homo.

That's why I was saying that you convict by using a specific definition. For me personhood implies sentience, if not, my right toe is of the type homo as well. Am I destroying a human if I amputate my toe?

shredbaron:
So you don't know for sure how the one basic cell which become the building block of life (by whatever means) came to be. You are however happy to accept that somehow it did.
That takes faith. Maybe you believe if you research it thoroughly enough you would find evidence which is convincing enough. Until that day, you must be comfortable in your belief that it is not about a supreme being because there has got to be more evidence that it happened spontaneously. I don,t think there is.

You continue to dodge the issue. Evolution has [b]nothing [/b]to do with the origin of the universe. Life did [b]not [/b]start from a basic cell. Have you read what I wrote about the definition of the Theory of Evolution you gave me? We do not know all the processes involved yet, but we are getting closer and closer. The scientific method is the [b]only [/b]way to increase our knowledge of the natural world fundamentally and yes, I believe in the results of the scientific method. If something becomes part of our scientific body of knowledge, it has already passed the tests of peer review and replication of all relevant test results. It passed the most relentless tests of critical inquiry.

shredbaron:
That takes faith. Maybe you believe if you research it thoroughly enough you would find evidence which is convincing enough. Until that day, you must be comfortable in your belief that it is not about a supreme being because there has got to be more evidence that it happened spontaneously. I don,t think there is.

No, that does not take faith, except maybe in the scientific method, but that method has an impeccable track record. All bad apples get thrown out eventually.
You on the other hand accept a supreme being by default and reason from that presupposition. This mode of thinking is all about faith. You are again inserting the god-of-the-gaps: if we don't know exactlly, to the letter, how it went...... goddidit. No evidence required. It is sloppy thinking and it explains nothing.
If you want to start your explanation from a supreme being, then you first have to define that supreme being in all it's properties, come up with a hypothesis of how that supreme being did his act of creation and test it against the evidenc, while actively trying to find evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. If you have done that, then your hypothesis might be promoted to the level of theory, but only after thousands of other scientist have tried their very best to destroy or falsify your theory.
That is how science works.

shredbaron:
I will. Meanwhile how do you think a scientific study becomes a study? It starts with postulates and hypothesis by curious mortals like you and I. They trace backward from what is available evidence (in this case)of life, making deductions as they proceed. In this day and age with technology for radiocarbon dating etc, one can reasonably believe that scientists can tell to a reasonable certainty how old fossils they dig up are. Bones of dead creature from time immemorial, comparisons with currently living creatures to find differences which they may attribute to evolution or whatever.

Correct. A lot of chips need to fall in exactly the right place for any explanatory idea to receive the status of theory. Only one chip that doesn't fall in the right place is enough to falsify the theory (or to introduce the need to adjust it)

shredbaron:
My main concern: how likely is it that they find evidence of how the world originated for sure. You don't know my friend, because nobody can for sure!

Depend on what you consider for sure. To quote Stephen Jay Gould again:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

That is about the level at which my certainty is: 99.99% sure, nearly sure, almost certainly sure, as sure as anybody can be.

shredbaron:
Zoology and botany teaches us that all creatures are grouped into kingoms, phylums, genus and species. They group similar behaving and looking creators together.

Actually systematics and cladistics have also evolved dramatically since They now use the M-DNA analysis in combination with the fossil record. A hgh degree of certainty in the grouping in the tree of life.

shredbaron:
So apes and humans have very similar characteristics. They are still totally difference creatures. What are the odds that fossils found dating eons of years ago of apes might look similar to humans? Well don't have to go back in time to know that they would. They do now! Especially if all you are going by are bones and teeth.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you ellaborate this argument?

shredbaron:
How likely is it that they find the initial building block or one close enough to it for an accurate conclusion? They are all deductions my friend and in the end all the fluffing about says, is that it started somehow and proceeded thus. Was it initially a vacuum? Science tells us: ain't nothing going to happen in a vacuum matey!

What are you trying to get at?

shredbaron:
Need I say more?

Actually, yes. the competing (if you can even use that word) explanations have not even reached the level of a full scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory.

shredbaron:
I get that you believe in evolution and that Abiogenesis is the study that proves how life originated which you don't know too much about. My problem is that until I can believe how life actually started by whatever study there is, evolution is no use to me in deciding how the world can to be. That area of science is not at tangible or provable if you like as quantum Physics. It involves too much speculation and conjecture and there are bit of faith.

Have you understood a word of what I've been writing? What speculation and conjecture are you talking about? The speculation and conjecture only exists in the heads of creationists and their ilk. Science has progressed immensely since Darwin.

PS my remark about 'inspired by Darwin was meant to be a joke. (Bible being inspired by God and all that.)

It may indeed, at the same level